Talking Pentecostalism

Reasons to love predestination

2011-09-23T20:32:00.002+10:00

If there was one doctrine you’d remove from the Bible, what would it be? For some it would be ‘predestination’. For many Christians today, this teaching is not only hard to understand, but even hard to accept. Most pentecostals and charismatics tend to avoid or work around this topic. I've written previously in depth about the problem that predestination poses to Pentecostalism generally. But what are the benefits of this doctrine for us?

Without denial the Bible again and again insists that God’s people were chosen by him to be saved; and chosen according to his sovereign pre-determining grace.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (Rom 8:29-30)

“He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons.” (Ephesians 1:4)

Why has God told us about predestination? Does this bible word deserve the ‘dirty’ image it has among many today? I’ll never forget a sermon I heard by tape from a local Presbyterian, Rob White, who gave five reasons why God gave us the biblical doctrine of predestination:

1. To humble us

When we see that salvation is attributed wholly to God we realise there is nothing to boast about, for then even our very faith is a miraculous gift from God (Eph 2:8-9). Rather than causing boasting, this truth excludes it; it actually works against our pride. Understanding God’s sovereign grace should eliminate arrogance. We only believe because he breathed his Spirit into us who were dead, and gave us faith; and he gave us faith because he called us; and he called us because he has chose us; and he has chose us because he fore-knew us, fore-loved us even before we existed, before the creation of the world.

If we have understood grace, we will be forever astonished and humbled that God has had mercy on us, completely unlovely sinners, yet loved by God even while we were against him and his enemies.

2. To give us assurance

Predestination gives us great assurance because we know that we are going to get there. And because it’s not that we are going to get there ourselves. God is going to do it and our salvation depends entirely on him; and he will never let us go.

The way some preachers appeal to Christians we’d be forgiven for feeling as though our lives were forever oscillating between ‘falling away’ from God and ‘coming back’; forever wavering between ‘with him’ and wandering ‘away’ from him.

But if God has brought us to faith in Christ, he has put his Spirit in us as a guarantee that he will keep dwelling in us by his Spirit; continually working in us and walking with us and keeping us in his love.

Even when we pass through periods of weakness in our faith and obedience, we can have the security of knowing that our salvation lies purely in the predestined will of God; like children who because incomplete in our obedience experience loving discipline, we always repent in full knowledge of our Father’s presence and love. This knowledge is the gift of Christian assurance. But despite this gift of knowledge, even if you don’t have full assurance as a Christian, that won’t stop God doing it, for, he is faithful.

3. To uphold our responsibility

Incorrectly understood, this doctrine is said to encourage apathy, because if salvation is entirely God’s work, then we don’t have any responsibility before God. But actually, God’s predestination upholds our responsibility before him. Jesus who said: ‘no one can come to me unless the Father draws Him’, also said to those who did not come to him, ‘you refuse to come to me and have life’.

Apathy is inconsistent with mature Christianity and an understanding of sovereign grace: it is when we are taking responsibility for our sin and life before God that it is evident that God is working in us by his Spirit and has therefore chosen us to be his own.

4. To motivate our holiness

Incorrectly understood, the doctrine of predestination is said to encourage complacency, because if God has destined us to have eternal life, his people have a license to live however we please.

But truly understood this teaching is the true motivation for holiness, because the purpose of God’s election is our holiness (Ephesians 1:4). We have been predestined to be conformed into the likeness of Jesus. If God’s Spirit is in us we will be living by the Spirit, and that means putting to death the misdeeds of our bodies; we are dead to sin, and alive to God.

Understanding that we have been chosen by God’s grace is the only real fuel for holiness and antidote for complacency.

5. To give us confidence

Incorrectly understood, election is said to encourage narrow-mindedness, because the chosen of God will become self-absorbed with this knowledge. This teaching is said to stifle evangelism, because if no one can be saved whom God has not chosen before time began, then there should be no point in our efforts to win the lost.

But actually, this knowledge shows us that salvation is so much bigger than ourselves and our lives. The reason God chose Abraham, Israel, Christ and his people is to bring his salvation to the ends of the earth. So actually, this teaching is the real fuel for our evangelism and missions.

It’s only when we understand God’s sovereign plan of election that there is any point in evangelisation. If God is working with us and he has promised that our work will be effective, and if he has ordained that through the preaching of the gospel that he himself will call his elect people to salvation, then we can have confidence in our praying and our preaching, and not become discouraged.

God’s word will accomplish his sovereign purpose, drawing his people to himself and condemning to judgment those who do not believe. It’s a sobering and humbling task because we are guaranteed to succeed, whether our message brings forgiveness of sins or not, because the gospel message itself was predestined to bring both salvation and and condemnation:

Just as Simeon said to Mary about the predetermined plan of God for Christ:

“This child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:34-35)

Though pierced with grief ourselves by those who reject Christ, we are always rejoicing as partners in God’s work, because as we labour in the word and in prayer, we always know that ‘as many as are appointed to eternal life [will] believe’ (Act 13:48).

Dirty bible words (such as predestination)

The knowledge of God's predestination is without doubt an unspeakable blessing to us as children of God our Father. Like all it's teaching, there are no doctrines in the bible that are not vital. They all interdependently arise from the one true God who has inspired the Scriptures by his Spirit, and given us in his Word everything that we need for our salvation, for our good and for our holiness.

We must not play ‘favourites’ with doctrine; we must not be 'choosy' with any truths of God’s word. In fact, being 'selective' at all with the Bible poses great dangers to Christian maturity. This is one of the major limitations with memory-verse systems and the like. We invariably give the upper-hand to our biased preferences which influence how we approach the Bible. We end up imposing our systems above the bible which are based upon our limited understanding, presuppositions and worse still popular appeal.

But it is God who is speaking and we should be listening. And he speaks through all of his Word. It is all given to us for our instruction and our good. We must not ignore or silence anything that the Bible says to us. It was original sin to doubt that God’s word was good and for our good, and to cease listening to everything that God had said to us.

There should be no doctrine we’d even dream of sidelining in the Bible, much less changing or removing; and least of all the doctrine of ‘predestination’, which to the Christian should perhaps be the grandest and sweetest of all truths. Though for many Christians today, this teaching may remain hard to understand, we should do more than simply accepting this doctrine. We should embrace it with two hands from our heavenly Father, with childlike faith, knowing that by grappling with it and growing up into this doctrine, it will come with all the rich rewards we’ve learned to expect from our good, gracious and loving Lord and God.

Tony Payne in the story of the charismatic movement

2011-07-13T21:41:00.000+10:00

Not the American darts player, but the Australian author, Publishing Director at Matthias Media and editor of The Briefing, Tony Payne is well known for his clear, evangelical and extremely well thought-out theological communication that is both insightful and practical on modern issues for Christians in our contemporary culture.

But increasingly he is also known for his story of beginnings and transition through the charismatic movement. In 2010 in an article published by The Briefing, A continuing story: 19th-century Methodists, charismatics and me, he describes his Christian beginnings and how he was first drawn by the 'charismatic' to seek the experience of miraculous, supernatural and dynamic Christian living:

"I had a powerful intuition that I was part of something radical and real—a movement that was recovering the power and reality of New Testament Christianity by restoring to it the spiritual gifts, experiential richness and miraculous flavour that had somehow become lost or forgotten."

Now years later, Payne reflects upon these early years and notices the similarity between his journey and the original factors that led to the rise of Pentecostalism. At the beginning of the nineteenth-century, the spread of Methodism to America inspired the Holiness Movement, after first originating in the eighteenth-century from John Wesley's new experiential spirituality which promoted the power of freedom from sin and the personal change that Christians could experience through the work of the Holy Spirit. Wesley's new emphasis inspired the English movement that would eventually grow, spread wings and develop into the American Holiness movement. And by the second half of the nineteenth-century it would be teaching a second post-conversion experience of Spirit baptism and the availability of 'faith healing'.

As the 'spiritual ancestors' of the charismatic movement, the Holiness preachers first inspired the birth of the Pentecostal movement at the turn of the twentieth-century, which grew into a worldwide movement in only three years when in 1906 a re-occurrance of tongues-speaking gained world-wide attention. This revival of tongues was perceived within the movement as an End-time restoration of the gift of languages (tongues) for multi-cultural evangelism, along with the other sign gifts such as miracles and healing, and as an essential evidence to identify those elite Christians who had been uniquely empowered by the Spirit for this task of final harvest of the unconverted world.

But in searching out and reflecting upon his own past, Payne notices the similarity in what fueled his own early quest and those factors which were driving nineteenth-century Methodism:

"It was a basic spiritual impatience. 19th-century American Methodism saw itself caught between two glorious realities. Behind them were the glories of the New Testament, with the power of Christ in his person and work, his miracles of healing, and the tantalizing references to charismata in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In front of them were the glories of the age to come, where there would be no sin, no disease, no death and no decay—a new world where Christians would finally be made perfect like their Lord, and where they would enjoy uninterrupted, face-to-face fellowship with God.

But they saw themselves stuck between these two, like a traveller who has left one brilliant city and is journeying towards an even more dazzling one, but who finds the road between them difficult and tiring, and the scenery unexciting. Their answer was to assert that the journey should not be so difficult—that there should be a shorter way. They wanted to say that miraculous powers of the New Testament age should be fully present in our lives, and that victory over sin and disease would not simply occur in the next age, but should also be our experience now."

Payne sees in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements a chronic spiritual 'impatience' (what theologians might describe as over-realised eschatology) -- an impulse to under-emphasise the distinct delay that has been imposed by Christ's ascension between this age, the 'last days', and the next age to come where after Christ's second coming there certainly will be divine health, perfect sinlessness, victory, peace and complete prosperity.

"My problem was that I didn't want to wait with patience. I wanted the power and the gifts and the glory, and I wanted it now. I wanted to share in the miracles and victory of Christ, not his suffering.

I was a continuationist who had fixed on the wrong point of continuity—because it is not the miraculous powers and wonders of Christ and the apostles that continue in our lives, but the afflictions and sufferings they endured for doing his Father's will. Our imitation of Christ, Paul and the apostolic churches is in laying down our lives in sacrifice for the sake of others and their salvation (1 Cor 10:33-11:1).

As I should have known, and have now discovered, this is the more excellent way."

In this article Tony Payne is not only personally reflective and critical, he is well researched and considered. Referencing among other things Donald Dayton's Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, he shows that he has properly read and understood the historical development of the charismatic movement and the importance of this for understanding and accurately evaluating the Pentecostal emphasis against the backdrop of our common Biblical data.

But in identifying what had driven his quest for the miraculous along with the early charismatics, Payne is also honest in his assessment of how serious this departure really is in terms of the New Testament's teaching. He sees it as a failure to follow Christ's pattern of cross-shaped living, who like him must suffer before entering his glory. While we wait for Christ to bring the New Creation, our walk is actually shaped and characterised by waiting. We must patiently endure, patiently suffer, patiently struggle; all the time while we yearn for what we cannot yet have: the glory, complete freedom and victory and full possession of our final inheritance -- a redeemed universe encompassing body, mind, spirit, and world.

Read more...

View full article here.

---

Tony Payne, The Briefing, Issue #379, April 2010, A continuing story: 19th-century Methodists, charismatics and me.

The History of 'Charisma'

2011-07-12T21:46:00.001+10:00

From Ancient Greece to the modern Charismatic Movement, from the Apostle Paul to twenty-first century politics and Pentecostalism -- Two excellent books are available at our own State Library on the history of charisma: John Potts' A history of charisma and Philip Rieff's Charisma. Rieff's book came first: Apparently quite an original work and three decades in the making, Charisma has the telling subtitle, "the gift of grace, and how it has been taken away from us." Rieff traces the evolution of charisma as a theological concept to it's transformation into a political force within modern culture.

Pott's book followed only two years later, and seems to be a completely parallel work. He specifically tracks the history of the word 'charisma' from the first century right through to the twenty-first century. The Apostle Paul first borrowed the word from Greco-Roman culture to coin a brand new term 'charismata' in his effort to re-frame first Christian thought about their various abilities, particularly those of the Corinthians. But the word has had various meanings assigned to it since then, leaving behind its original use in Christian theology, evolving into its brand new manifestation within current politics and culture. However interestingly, Pott shows that its current use by modern Charismatics, who claimed the term as their own, shows significant disparity with Paul's own thought and emphasis. Nonetheless elements of it's original meaning do continue within the contemporary secular understanding, but just fragments.

I found Pott's work particularly easy to read and quite exciting. He is insightful both for understanding the place and influence of charisma within our culture, but also for his helpful analysis of Pentecostalism and the development of the Charismatic Movement. This read is great for unravelling the distinction between modern developments in belief about spirituality and spiritual gifts, and the original New Testament teaching and emphasis of the Apostle Paul.

---

Potts, John. A history of charisma. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Rieff, Philip. Charisma: the gift of grace, and how it has been taken away from us, 1st ed, New York : Pantheon Books, 2007.

Revivalism and Power (Part III): Finney’s teaching and its problems

2011-06-29T21:38:00.001+10:00

I’m going to be running an elective on Pentecostalism and the Spirit next week at the University Fellowship of Christians (UTAS) Mid-Year Conference. We’re going to look directly at Charles Finney’s Power from on High in order to understand Finney’s teaching and its problems.

I’ve selected 5 key sections out of the book and at each point I want to examine a lengthy quote: The need for power; conditions of receiving power; the effect of possessing power; power in prayer and power in preaching. At each point, I’ll be asking the following questions: What is Finney teaching here? Is it partly true? (If so, what is right?) What are the problems? What bad fruit might this teaching bear? What corrections are needed? What good fruit should correction in this area produce?

I'm not coming to give all the answers. Instead, I want this to be a kind of working group. But I’m looking forward to working together with others on this important area, taking extensive notes and reporting back what we find out together with both Charles Finney and Bibles open.

But to help you get prepared, here are the sections:

The need for power

Charles Finney’s Power from on High begins in Chapter 1 by correcting a misunderstanding among his members of the council of Oberlin regarding the “second blessing”. Formerly the Holiness movement had inherited from Methodism the notion that the second blessing relates to perfection, or “entire sanctification”. But Finney, although maintaining the importance of ‘sinlessness’ for reception, had taken a step forward: the blessing itself was not sinlessness (or entire sanctification); that was only the means to this end. The blessing itself, the end, was power.

To Finney, because the Great Commission is given to the “whole church”, therefore “every member of the church is obligated to make it his life work to convert the world”. Finney had been addressing what was to him the most vital of questions, “what do we need to ensure success in this great work?” His answer: we need to be clothed with power from on high, according to Luke 24:49. To Finney, receiving this power presents the certainty that we will “be successful in winning souls, if we ask and fulfil the plainly revealed conditions of prevailing prayer” (More on ‘prevailing prayer’ later).

But among the council “the lack of power is a subject of constant complaint.” Everybody is praying continually for power, but to no avail. In reply Finney lists many reasons why this outpouring of power is not received, the last and greatest of which is unbelief. And summing up, Finney reflects: “I was obliged to conclude that these and other forms of indulged sin explain why so little is received, while so much is asked”.

But here is where the Council of Oberlin still hung onto their former notions of perfectionism: they asked Finney: “If we first get rid of all these forms of sin, which prevent our receiving this outpouring, have we not already obtained the blessing? What more do we need?”

In reply Finney answers:

“There is a great difference between the peace and the power of the Holy Spirit in the soul. The disciples were Christians before the Day of Pentecost, and, as such, had a measure of the Holy Spirit. They must have had the peace of sins forgiven and of a justified state, but yet they had not the infusion of power necessary to do the work assigned them. They had the peace which Christ had given them but not the power which He had promised.

This may be true of all Christians, and right here is, I think, the great mistake of the church and of the ministry. They rest in conversion and do not seek until they obtain this outpouring of power from on high. Hence, so many professors of Christianity have no power with either God or man. They prevail with neither. They cling to hope in Christ, and even enter the ministry, overlooking the admonition to wait until they are clothed with power from on high.” (Finney, p. 11-12)

Conditions of receiving power

In Chapter 4, “Conditions of receiving power”, Charles Finney sets out the situation of the first disciples, and in the narratives of the Gospel accounts finds three conditions of receiving the ‘outpouring of power’ from on high:

“First, we, as Christians, have the same commission to fulfil. As truly as they did, we need an outpouring of power from on high. Of course, the same admonition, to wait on God until we receive it, is given to us.

Second, we have the same promise that they had. Now, let us take substantially and in spirit the same course that they did. They were Christian and had a measure of the Spirit to lead them in prayer and in consecration. So have we. Every Christian possesses a measure of the Spirit of Christ, enough of the Holy Spirit to lead us to true consecration and inspire us with the faith essential to prevail in prayer. Let us, then, not grieve or resist Him, but accept the commission, fully consecrate ourselves, with all we have, to the saving of souls as our great and our only lifework. Let us go to the altar with all we have and are, and lie there and persist in prayer until we receive the outpouring.

Now, observe, conversion to Christ is not to be confused with acceptance of this commission to convert the world. The first is a personal transaction between the soul and Christ relating to its own salvation. The second is the sou’s acceptance of the service in which Christ proposes to employ it.

Christ does not require us to make brick without straw. To whom He gives the commission He also gives the admonition and the promise. If the commission is heartily accepted, if the promise is believed, if the admonition to wait upon the Lord until our strength is renewed is complied with, we will receive the outpouring.

Third, it is of supreme importance that all Christians should understand that this commission to convert the world is given to them by Christ individually.

Everyone has the great responsibility passed on to him or her to win as many souls as possible to Christ. This is the great privilege and the great duty of all the disciples of Christ. There are a great many departments in this work. But in every department we may and ought to possess this power so that, whether we preach, or pray, or write, or print, or trade, or travel. Or take care of children, or administer the government or the state, or whatever we do, our whole lives and influence should be permeated with this power. Christ says, “He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” (John 7:38). That is, a Christian influence, having in it the element of power to impress the truth of Christ upon the hearts of men, will proceed from him. “(Finney, p. 32-34)

The effect of possessing power

In Chapter 2, Finney explains what exactly is the ‘power’ described in the promise and command of Luke 24:49 for all Christians. Although for the apostles and believers on the Day of Pentecost, Finney describes an increase in illumination, gifts, holiness, self-sacrifice, cross-bearing, meekness, loving enthusiasm in preaching, teaching, faith, tongues, miracles, inspiration and moral courage, still these were all only means.

“In their circumstances, all these gifts were essential to their success, but neither separately nor all together did they constitute that power from on high which they manifestly received, That which they manifestly received as the supreme, crowning, and all-important means of success was the power to prevail with both God and man, the power to fasten saving impressions on the minds of men. This was doubtless the thing which they understood Christ to promise. He had commissioned them to convert the world to Him. All that I have named above were only means, which could never secure the end unless they were vitalized and made effective by the power of God. The apostles, no doubt, understood this; and, laying themselves and their all upon the altar, they entreated the throne of grace in the spirit of entire consecration to their work.” (Finney, p. 14)

To Finney, what the Apostles received ‘supremely and principally’ at Pentecost was “power to make saving impressions on men”. This is why so many were converted immediately following Peter’s sermon. They had from that moment a power in them to convert people. And this power “stayed with and upon them” (p. 15). This is the big thing, the main thing that the early Church had that we lack.

The power works both mysteriously and surprisingly:

“Sometimes a single sentence, a word, a gesture, or even a look will convey this power in an overcoming manner”. (Finney, p. 16)

The power depends on humility and whole hearted consecration:

“Sometimes I would find myself, in a great measure, empty of this power. I would go out and visit and find that I made no saving impression. I would exhort and pray with the same result. I would then set apart a day for private fasting and prayer, fearing that this power had departed from me, and would inquire anxiously after the reason of this apparent emptiness. After humbling myself and crying out for help, the power would return upon me with all its freshness. This has been the experience of my life.” (Finney, p. 16-17)

“When Christians humble themselves and consecrate their all afresh to Christ and ask for this power, they will often receive such a baptism that they will be instrumental in converting more souls in one day than in all their lifetime before. While Christians remain humble enough to retain this power, the work of conversion will go on until whole communities and regions of the country are converted to Christ. The same is true of ministers.” (Finney, p. 20).

Power in prayer

In Chapter 6 Charles Finney describes that most important of activities for Christian effectiveness: Prevailing prayer. Even receiving this power will not necessarily bring success in ‘winning souls’ if we do not “ask and fulfil the plainly revealed conditions of prevailing prayer.” By way of definition, he says “Prevailing prayer is that which gets an answer. Saying prayers is not offering prevailing prayer. The effectiveness of prayer does not depend so much on the quantity as the quality.” (p. 51)

“...What was I to make of what I witnessed from week to week and month to month in that prayer meeting? Were they real Christians? Was that which I heard real prayer in the Bible sense? Was it such prayer as Christ had promised to answer? Here I found the solution. I became convinced that they were under a delusion, that they did not prevail because they had no right to prevail. They did not comply with the conditions on which God had promised to hear prayer. Their prayers were just the kind God had promised not to answer. It was evident they were overlooking the fact that they were in danger of praying themselves into scepticism in regard to the value of prayer.” (Finney, p. 53)

In Finney’s reading of the Bible, he notices many conditions of answered prayer, and highlights the following: Faith in God, asking according to the will of God, sincerity, unselfishness, a clear conscience, a pure heart, due confession, clean hands, being at peace with fellow believers, humility, taking away stumbling blocks, having a forgiving spirit, exercising a truthful spirit, praying in the name of Christ, inspiration from the Holy Spirit, fervency, perseverance, a consistent us of means to obtain the object asked for, being specific, meaning what we say, assuming the good faith of God in all his promises, watchfulness, praying in the Holy Spirit (Finney, p. 53-62).

“When the fallow ground is thoroughly broken up in the hearts of Christians, when they have confessed and made restitution—if the work is thorough and honest—they will naturally and inevitably fulfil the conditions and will prevail in prayer. But it cannot be too distinctly understood that none others will. What we commonly hear in prayer and conference meetings is not prevailing prayer. It is often astonishing and lamentable to witness the delusions that prevail on the subject. Who that has witnessed real revivals of religion has not been struck with the change that comes over the whole spirit and manner of the prayers of really revived Christians? I do not think I ever could have been converted if I had not discovered the solution to the question, Why is it that so much that is called prayer is not answered?” (Finney, p. 63)

Power in preaching

In chapter 7 “How to Win Souls”, Charles Finney presents a “philosophy of preaching the Gospel in a way that will bring about the salvation of souls”.

“If we are unwise, illogical, and out of all natural order in presenting the Gospel, we have no right to expect divine cooperation. In winning souls, as in everything else, God works through and in accordance with natural laws. Hence, if we would win souls, we must wisely follow natural laws. We must present the necessary truths and do so in that order adapted to the natural laws of the mind, of thought and mental action. A false mental philosophy will greatly mislead us, and we will often be found ignorantly working against the Holy Spirit.” (Finney, p. 67)

“Sinners must be convicted of their enmity...By the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20)... By the law, he first learns that God is perfectly benevolent and infinitely opposed to all selfishness. This law, then, should be arrayed in all its majesty against the selfishness and enmity of the sinner. This law carries irresistible conviction of its righteousness, and no moral agent can doubt it. All men know that they have sinned, but not all are convicted of the guilt and deserved punishment of sin... The spirituality of the law should be unsparingly applied to the conscience until the sinner’s self-righteousness is annihilated, and he stands speechless and self-condemned before a holy God.” (Finney, p. 67-68).

“The law does its work—annihilates the sinner’s self-righteousness and shows him mercy is his only hope. Then, he should be made to understand that it is morally impossible for a just God not to execute a penalty when the law has been broken. Right here the sinner should be made to understand that he cannot assume that because God is benevolent He will forgive him. For unless public justice can be satisfied, the law of universal benevolence forbids the forgiveness of sin. If public justice is not regarded in the exercise of mercy, the good of the public is sacrificed to that of the individual. God will never do this. This teaching will give the sinner no choice but to look for some offering to public justice. Now, give him the atonement as a fact revealed and point to Christ alone as his own sin offering. Stress the revealed fact that God has accepted the death of Christ as a substitute for the sinner’s death, and that this is to be received upon the testimony of God. Since the sinner is already crushed into contrition by the convicting power of the law, the revelation of the love of God manifest in the death of Christ will naturally produce great self-loathing. It will produce that godly sorrow that needs “not to be repented of” (2 Cor 7:10). Under this evidence, the sinner can never forgive himself. God is holy and gracious, and he as sinner, saved by sovereign grace.” (Finney, p. 69-70)

---

Finney, Charles G. Power from on High, Whitaker House, 1995.

Power and Revivalism (Part II): Finney’s new empowerment

2011-06-29T21:30:00.001+10:00

America’s two Great Awakenings had a huge effect on Christian thinking. The intense revivalism of nearly an entire century was a fire pot for theological innovation, evolution and diversion as much as anything, and we’re still feeling the effect of that today, particularly with the ever rising influence of modern-day Pentecostal revivalism.

Charles G. Finney (1792-1875) was the outstanding evangelist of the Second Great Awakening (ca. 1795-1930) and the dominant theological figure. He came from within Presbyterianism but was significantly influenced by Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection, which crystallised his belief in 'entire sanctification' as a state of perfect trust in God and commitment to his will. But for him this state of perfect consecration to God was only the means to the second blessing. The higher Christian state, attainable following conversion, was a state of empowerment through the experience of Spirit-baptism.

Finney was also immensely influenced by Nathaniel W. Taylor's form of Arminianism, called New Haven Theology. New Haven theology was a late stage of the New England theology that originated in the work of Jonathan Edwards to defend the revival of the First Great Awakening (ca. 1735-43). Understanding New Haven theology and its historical development is the key to understanding Finney’s new revivalism.

Jonathan Edwards

In the 1700s during the First Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards (1703-58) rejuvenated Augustinian theology and Calvinism to give spiritual legitimacy to the revival. His theology dominated American Christianity for almost a century. Edwards is regarded as the classical theologian of revival. He emphasised the sovereignty of God in revival and the inability of people to produce revival. He also taught that genuine Christianity was not revealed by the quality or intensity of religious affections or experiences, but by a change of heart to love and seek God’s pleasure. Emotions or wilful exertion could not produce or ‘cause’ the work of God.

Along with George Whitefield, he taught that salvation belonged entirely to God and that people did not possess the natural ability to turn to Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. In Original Sin (1758) he taught that all mankind were present in Adam when he sinned. Consequently all people share his sinful character and guilt. Only God’s sovereign grace could cause them to repent. The human “will” was not an independent faculty, but an expression of basic motivation. Modern versions of “free will” only served to remove human responsibility.

Through Edwards, New England theology began with a focus on: the supremacy, sovereignty and majesty of God; the morality of divine justice for a sovereign God; and the problem of causation behind sin, including the problem of the freedom of the human will. But Edward’s successors would not master his theological rigour, and introduced subtle changes to his theology that would have a significant affect over time. Eventually in the nineteenth-century, his protégé would reverse many of his basic teachings.

David Hume

The Enlightenment was at its climax in the eighteenth-century (the age of ‘reason’). David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher and one of the key figures of the Enlightenment. He wrote Treatise of Human Nature (1734-37) which was taken by orthodox Christianity as an attack because it taught that all human knowledge is a product of experience. Hume reasoned that actual reality cannot be known for certain, because human knowledge cannot go beyond the appearance of probability, only having certainty over the relationship between ideas, not between objects. The concept of causality, cause and effect, was an assumption, an association made because of the appearance of cause and effect. In Dialogues, Hume denied the argument of natural theology. While not denying the existence of God, he argued that God’s existence cannot be established from reason or sense experience, and cannot be proved from causality.

Thomas Reid

Thomas Reid (1710-96) was a moderate Presbyterian and was particularly disturbed by Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (1739), which he saw as a denial of the reality of external objects, causation and the unity of the mind. He attempted to overcome what he saw as a threat to Christianity from Hume in his writings: Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (1764), Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1764) and Essays on the Active Powers of Man (1785).

Scottish Realism was the popular movement that he left behind him in the eighteenth and nineteenth-century. It aimed to stem the infidelity of the Enlightenment and combat the scepticism of David Hume with a philosophy of ‘common’ sense and natural ‘realism’, which taught a universal and innate human freedom and the power of people to shape their own destinies. The “self-evident” principles of ‘common experience’ were: the existence of external objects, causality and the obligations of morals.

Scottish Realism has been shown to have had an immensely influential effect on American theology during the nineteenth-century. Among those influenced were the children, grandchildren and protégé of Jonathan Edwards.

Timothy Dwight

Edward’s own son, Jonathan Edwards Jn. (1745-1801) and his grandson, Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) both deviated from Edwards. Dwight was a revivalist and a theologian of the Second Great Awakening, and was particularly influenced by the eighteenth-century rationalist movement, himself contributing to Scottish realism in America.

Both tended to view sin as a summation of evil deeds rather than principally a wrong state of being that produces evil deeds. Dwight had a greater view of human ability, and in contrast to Edwards, emphasised the natural ability of people to respond to the gospel. He also endeavoured to emphasise the ‘reasonable’ nature of the Christian position by giving it a rational defence in the context of the Enlightenment, rather than emphasising the supremacy and majesty of God, as had Edwards.

But it was one of Dwight’s students that changed the emphasis of New England theology most dramatically.

Nathaniel Taylor

Timothy Dwight’s best student Nathaniel W. Taylor (1786-1858), who was profoundly influenced by his revivalism, accepted Scottish realism, the humanistic teaching of common sense realism that teaches that ‘reason’ provides proof of the first principles of morality that make humans free moral agents. And building on the foundation laid by Dwight, he contended that people inherently possessed a natural power to be able to make free choices. He modified Calvinism to make it compatible with the revivalism of the Second Great awakening in the opening decades of the nineteenth-century.

His teaching on human nature famously stated that individuals always possessed a “power to the contrary”. Following the lead of Jonathan Edwards Jn. and Timothy Dwight, he taught that although everyone did in fact sin, this was not a result of God’s predestination of human nature.

Going completely against the teaching of Jonathan Edwards, he reversed many of the original positions of New England theology, teaching that sin was actually is the exercise of wilful actions against God, rather than an underlying condition of existing by nature with a will in opposition to God.

In order to make them compatible with the actual practices of the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, Taylor altered almost every doctrine of the Reformation and Calvinism, including revelation, human depravity, the sovereignty of God, the atonement, and regeneration.

W. A. Hoffecker has written about him:

“He insisted that people are lost but denied that Adam’s sin was imputed to all people and that everyone inherits a sinful nature that causes one to sin. Even though a person sins, that person has the power to do otherwise, thus remaining morally responsible. God made humans with a proper self-love, a natural desire for happiness, which motivates all choice.

Taylor also reinterpreted Calvin’s teaching on God’s sovereignty by calling God a moral governor who rules, not by determining the destiny of all people through election, but rather by establishing a moral universe and judging its inhabitants. God promotes moral action by a system of means and ends in which people can respond to ethical appeals for repentance.

He opposed the legal view of the atonement that stressed Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross in the place of sinners to satisfy God’s justice. Instead, God as benevolent moral governor sent Christ to die so that his death could be preached as a means to urge sinners to turn freely from their sin out of self-love and be converted”. (Elwell, p. 1168).

In direct opposition to Jonathan Edwards in the 1740s, Taylor undermined the distinction between the Holy Spirit’s sovereign work of regeneration and human repentance, and in so doing denied the absolute grace of God in salvation.

In what is now called New Haven Theology, Taylor's form of Arminianism greatly influenced a new revivalist and evangelist, Charles Finney, who would go even further in bringing this new theology of revivalism to its maturity.

Charles Finney

Dramatically converted in the middle of the revivalism of the American Holiness movement in 1821, Charles G. Finney (1792-1875) became the leading evangelist and leader in the movement. He is credited with establishing the modern forms and methods of revivalism, indirectly inherited by Pentecostalism. He spent the last 40 years of his life constructing a new theology of revival, casting into shadow the classic work of Jonathan Edwards.

He was influenced profoundly by Wesley’s theology, by the emphasis of the American Holiness movement, and by New Haven Theology. Underpinning all of Finney’s doctrine was his conviction from Wesley that the practice of Christian perfection was the attainable duty of all Christians, and his conviction from Taylor that God has established natural means and ends in which people can and will respond to ethical appeals for repentance.

Accordingly, Finney taught that God had established the means by which humans could produce revival. He believed that not only had individuals possessed the ability within themselves to make a choice to follow Christ, but also that Christians possessed the power within themselves to live holy lives.

He taught that the result of God's help combined with strenuous human effort was blessing and revival: "A revival is as naturally a result of the use of the appropriate means as a crop is of the use of its means." In his Revival Lectures, Finney taught that God had revealed laws of revival in Scripture: when the Church obeyed these laws, spiritual renewal followed. In direct contradiction to Edwards, Christians had the ability by means of complete commitment and faith to bring the Holy Spirit's blessing.

He thus gave a central role to human ability as a means to bring God's blessing and the Spirit's power, creating revival by use of human means. Whereas Edward’s had emphasised the sovereign grace of God in salvation, Finney emphasised human choice in conversion, and went as far as psychologising conversion. His Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1854) taught techniques for success.

He had expected revival to overtake America and bring social, political and economic reform. But later in his Letters on Revival (1845) he revised this expectation, confessing to over-optimism. However he nonetheless hoped that Oberlin theology (named after Oberlin College in Ohio where he was professor since 1836), propagated also by the likes of Asa Mahan, would generate a “new race of revival ministers” and in time ‘awaken’ Christians to the attainable duty of walking in Christian perfection.

Oberlin theology emphasised a second more robust and mature stage of Christian experience. While different names were employed, Finney distinctly taught it as “baptism of the Holy Ghost”, and differed from Wesley in requiring entire sanctification as the means to obtaining this blessing, being a state of complete commitment to God’s will rather than perfect sinlessness. He also came to believe that this state should be reached by a process of steady growth, rather than by a dramatic single ‘crisis’ event.

Oberlin theology had an enormous effect on nineteenth-century evangelical belief. Finney’s pioneering of his so-called ‘new measures’ in revivalism and his active encouragement of concern for society and the role of revival in reforming America meant that his theology not only had a dramatic effect on the shape and direction of the Holiness movement towards the end of the nineteenth-century, but also had a widespread social impact on American culture. It continued to have an influence well into the twentieth-century directly through the Holiness movement, but indirectly it continues to have an almost unquantifiable impact via its inheritance in the genetic makeup of Pentecostalism.

Charles Finney's central emphasis on human ability and his confidence in the effect of natural means to change the world can ultimately be understood as an over-reaction to David Hume's scepticism and rejection of causality. In an age of Enlightenment, when Reason was the language of debate, and Philosophy had seemingly taken the ground out from under Christianity by rejecting causality and confidence in human ability, Thomas Reid reacted by asserting the power of people to shape their world and their destiny. His approach of fighting reason with reason, and philosophical innovation with theological revision set in place a chain-reaction that would result in the evolution of a brand new modern revivalism: from Timothy Dwight to Nathaniel Taylor, from Charles Finney to Pentecostalism; and from the Pentecostal movement the “new race of revival ministers” continues to grow, exemplified and amplified acutely in the model of ministry that was practiced by Leonard Ravenhill and Stephen Hill.

Today revivalism has long left behind Edward’s insistence on total dependence on the sovereign and free grace of God and has become a new form of Christian legalism. It insists on the central role of human ability and free choice, and preaches a Christian duty of exercising total commitment to his work that brings a new and unique power from God to change our lives, our world and society.

In the next post, we’ll look directly at Charles Finney’s Power from on High in order to understand Finney’s teaching and its problems: The need for power; conditions of receiving power; the effect of possessing power; power in prayer and power in preaching.

---

Brown, Colin. Philosophy and the Christian Faith, IVP, 1969.

Elwell, W. A (Ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2001, p. 1168

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature (Book I), Collins Sons & Co, 1962.

Revivalism and Power (Part I): Finney and Pentecostalism

2011-06-29T21:23:00.001+10:00

Describing the power of God during revival, Charles Finney wrote:

“This power is a great marvel. I have many times seen people unable to endure the Word. The most simple and ordinary statement would cut men off from their seats like a sword, take away their bodily strength, and render them almost as helpless as dead men. Several times it has been true in my experience that I could not raise my voice, or say anything in prayer or exhortation except in the mildest manner, without wholly overcoming those who were present. This was not because I was preaching terror to the people, but the sweetest sounds of the Gospel would overcome them.

This power seems sometimes to pervade the atmosphere of one who is highly charged with it. Many times great numbers of people in a community are clothed with this power when the very atmosphere of the whole place seems to be charged with the life of God. Strangers coming into it and passing through the place are instantly struck with conviction of sin and, in many instances, converted to Christ.” (Finney, p. 19-20)

The ‘power’ – the mysterious and surprising power of God – had never before had such a vital role to play in bringing revival. The Great Awakenings, particularly the second wave of revivals that gave birth to the Methodists, had its strong focus on holiness. It in turn gave birth to the Holiness movement when Wesley’s Methodism spread to America. But then Charles Finney emerged within the American movement, affecting a deep shift in emphasis, significantly changing the focus of the movement from sanctification to empowerment. The Holiness movement became the Power movement and revivalism changed its focus. Finney’s revivalism was a quest for power, and it found fertile soil in the landscape of American idealism at the turn of the nineteenth-century, and in turn found a permanent place in what is now the biggest and still fastest growing movement in the world: Pentecostalism, the power-revival movement still feeling the affect of Finney’s legacy and continuing to dramatically shape 21^st century Evangelicalism.

Enter Pentecostal revivalism

Reading Charles Finney as a Hillsong College student in 1997 had a deep impact upon my changing spirituality. I had left for the Sydney leadership college after year 12 to begin a decidedly indefinite period of preparation for what I planned would be a lifelong ministry as an evangelist and church planter. The entire endeavour would amount to a brief excursion of a little less than one full calendar year, but the effect of that 12 months is still being felt in my life today, well over a decade later.

As an evangelical ‘charismatic’, much more than an old-school Pentecostal, Power from on High changed not only the way I evangelised people, but also the way I prayed. The book’s blurb summarises Finney’s approach to revivalism well:

“Is it possible to lead sinners to the Lord with one look or a single sentence? Charles Finney did. He knew the secret of winning souls to Christ—an outpouring of power from heaven. In this book, he gives remarkable stories of dramatic conversions, along with instructions on how to receive power from God, overcome sin, and prevail in prayer.”

Without realising the significant of my choice for a Sydney AOG college, I had walked into a distinctively Pentecostal culture. I myself had converted to a Pentecostal doctrinal system years earlier, but existed in a mainline Brethren church that had turned Charismatic. At home I was considered ‘full on’ for simply holding to the notions of divine healing and tongues as compulsory evidence of Spirit baptism. But here, these were but mere elemental truths. This was a place where Kenneth Copeland was in the curriculum, Prosperity preaching was a significant element of every church service, and Charles Finney was recommended reading from the library book list. And any serious student sought him out first. I was now to be affected by a new exposure to the first-fruits of the Holiness movement and a mainstay culture of revivalism.

Although I was already a very passionate and active evangelist, I had only led a handful of people to Christ. But now, Power from on High gave me not only answers on how I could be more effective, but also the guarantee of success: If I fulfilled the conditions described by Finney, I would succeed in winning more souls.

At the same time, the Pensacola Revival of Brownsville USA was well underway. I had already been referred to Leonard Ravenhill by a close and dear mentor, Kevin Wilcock, and chewed my way through Ravenhill’s scolding Why Revival Tarries and Revival God’s Way. But now I was able to listen directly to the preaching of his protégée, Steven Hill, and watch the video replays of the dramatic responses to his sermons, with hundreds of people pouring forward from their pews towards the altar of the church in repentance of sin, service after service, year after year.

Hill’s Time to Weep described the “power of repentance that brings revival”, and also had a deep influence on my spiritual quest for personal revival. After reading this book, I began to make it my daily goal to spend long hours on my knees in prayer and fasting for power, and with my head on the carpet weeping over the lost multitudes. I’d regularly follow this routine with walk-up evangelism in my Local Street, mall or shopping centre. I would spend Friday night going through Parramatta mall with Bible college friends, asking every passerby, “Have you heard the good news?” Saturday nights we might journey to Oxford Street in the city seeking to find and convert Pedestrians.

And people did make decisions to follow Christ. One or two people here, a few more there; but I was hungry for souls and a few handfuls in as many months was well below our expectations. Finney’s Revivalism promised mass conversions. According to Finney, the Power of God, the Power to be witnesses, should bring whole streets to Christ, if we fulfilled the conditions necessary. Together we should be able to reach hundreds, thousands of people, eventually changing the city, the nation, the world even—provided we remained humble, provided we did the hours in prayer, provided we wanted it enough, fasted enough, wept and remained 100 per cent abandoned to Christ’s mission. And so we endeavoured to ‘press in’ harder.

But although we were never completely aware of it at the time, the results were far from evident. Yes dozens of people had made ‘decisions’, but many of these commitments to Christ later fell through. We were heart-broken again and again to see much of our labour torn apart by the power of sin in the lives of our converts which remained a destructive influence despite all of our prayer and preaching. We were earnest, sincere, but still lacking success.

We needed more power. And so at the time we simply became hungrier and spiritually desperate for the dynamic and effective enabling of the Spirit that had been promised to give us real and lasting success. We began and attended more prayer meetings, spent longer in private prayer, and time and time again I returned to Finney’s How to win souls and his Power from on High, asking myself, what was I missing and how could I obtain what we still lacked.

From Holiness to Power

Some years later I know look back on myself and those years at Hillsong immersed in Finney’s revivalism, and I have now the ability to make sense of Pentecostalism and its particular quest for power within the context of the history of Evangelicalism.

Pentecostalism itself has its roots in nineteenth-century American Revivalism, inheriting the emphasis of Charles Finney directly from the Holiness movement. In the eighteenth-century John Wesley’s doctrine of 'entire sanctification' taught that sanctification involves a 'second blessing' as an experience of the Spirit distinct from conversion. Wesleyan doctrine spread to America where it inspired the ‘Holiness’ movement in the 1840-50s, it’s name coming from the original motive of preserving and spreading Wesley's doctrine of entire ‘holiness’, Christian perfection and Methodism's “second blessing” emphasis. However the Holiness movement in turn reformed Wesleyan theology on the 'second blessing' by shifting to the notion that Spirit-baptism was actually the second experience (not sanctification/ entire holiness) and the purpose was to empower Christians for miraculous evangelization of the world.

The Holiness movement sought to restore what it understood to be New Testament Christianity to the Church in the last days in preparation for Christ's return in order to accomplish the churches mission of converting the world. This led to the movement developing what it saw to be the “full" gospel” = Christ as not only Saviour, but also Baptizer and Healer, as well Coming King.

At the turn of the twentieth century the Holiness movement was pregnant with Pentecostalism. What was missing was only one element that the worldwide revival only a few years after the turn of the century would deliver: the gift of ‘languages’ (tongues) for equipping the end time church with the gift it needed for inter-national and worldwide evangelism, and at the same time serving an immediate evidence/sign of the second work in order to distinguish those who had the power from those Christians who had not.

"By the turn of the century, the Holiness movement had become preoccupied with the ‘Pentecostal reformation of Weslyan doctrine’ and the four themes of the full gospel. In fact, when the Pentecostal movement began a few years later, only the priority given to the gift of tongues distinguished it theologically from Holiness beliefs" (Systematic Theology, p. 15-16.)

To understand Pentecostal spirituality we need to first understand the Holiness movement which gave it birth. Phoebe Palmer and John Inskip were leaders in the movement who, although still teaching that the second work of grace was sanctification, began employing the new scriptural imagery of Spirit “outpouring”, and Spirit “baptism”. But it was primarily through the significant influence of the evangelist Charles Finney (1792-1875) that the nature of the second work of grace began to slowly shift to “instant empowerment.” He taught not only that the second experience was Spirit baptism, but that it brought something entirely additional to sanctification: it gave a unique power from God.

Finney within Pentecostalism

With Finney’s doctrine and new emphasis, the Holiness movement adopted a new form of revivalism with a quest for power that became the DNA later inherited by the Pentecostals. This late nineteenth-century American revivalism generated a third ‘great awakening’ that swept the globe as a worldwide revival after a re-occurrence of tongues-speaking at the Azusa Street meetings from 1906-1909 gained international attention: The ‘Holiness’ movement had given birth to the ‘Empowerment’ movement, propagating a new message of Pentecostal power and how it could not only be received, but also evidenced.

Accordingly, understanding Pentecostalism needs to begin by understanding the emphasis of Charles Finney on power. It was his shift to focus on empowerment, and his confidence in the certain effect of the use of natural means that formed the backbone of what became the Pentecostal movement, radically altering still further the way Christians would understand their mission.

In the next post we’ll look through the historical developments that gave rise to Finney’s new empowerment and how this radically altered Christian thinking and the direction of Evangelicalism.

---

Finney, Charles G. Power from on High, Whitaker House, 1995.

Hill, Stephen. Time to Weep, Creation House, 1997.

McGee, Gary B. Systematic Theology, Logion Press, 1995.

Ravenhill, Leonard. Why Revival Tarries, Bethany House Publishers, 1959.

Ravenhill, Leonard. Revival God’s Way, Bethany House Publishers, 1983.

Filled in Him: The full-gospel of fullness in God

2011-05-28T21:07:00.006+10:00

The desire for fullness in God is as basic to spirituality as our daily quest for a full stomach. Pentecostalism is a movement that comes at the end of a long line of charismatic movements stretching back to the early centuries of the church that have all in their own way been united in their quest for ‘more’ in Christian experience than the basics of salvation through Christ:

“Throughout the history of Christianity, there have always been individuals seeking for “something more” in their spiritual pilgrimage, occasionally prompting them to explore the meaning of Spirit baptism and spiritual gifts.” (Horton, 1995, p. 9)

Pentecostals want to move beyond the ‘beginnings’ of the gospel, the saving work of Christ. They see in the New Testament a ‘fuller’ gospel, that following conversion to Jesus Christ and cleansing from sin, involves a second stage of fullness in God through the Holy Spirit. It is this subsequent work of the Spirit, according to Pentecostalism, that “fills” Christians in God.

“The task given to the twentieth-century Church is to preach all the gospel. What is needed is not a different gospel but the fullness of the gospel as it is recorded in the New Testament. We emphasize this because the Holy Spirit has been neglected over the centuries. We have the task of understanding anew the person and work of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible and experience in the life of the Church today. The full-gospel message programs the centrality of the work of the Holy Spirit... (Horton, 1995, p. 379)

How to be filled in God

How can Christians be ‘filled’ in God and be sure that we have all of him who would give all of himself to us? There are many places we could go in the New Testament trying to look for a complete answer to this question. But what may be less commonly known is that there is actually one book in the Bible that addresses this very question specifically, and in detail.

The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossians has as its central theme ‘fullness in God’. So what does Colossians say about being filled in God? What does it teach us about the person and work of the Holy Spirit, and Paul’s answer to this question?

What comes as a huge surprise when we look through this letter is that the book actually focuses not on the person and work of the Holy Spirit, but on the person and work of Jesus Christ. In fact, what is staggering is that there is not a single mention of the Spirit whatsoever throughout its teaching. It proclaims a message about Christian fullness, about being ‘filled in him’, but with a gaze fixed on the second person of the trinity alone. How can this be?

It’s a very interesting find, and it begs the question: what is Paul’s understanding of fullness in God? And how does this relate to the person and work of Christ?

If we want to be ‘filled in him’ (Col 2:10) we could do a lot worse than having a very close look at this letter from Paul, the very book in the Bible devoted to our search for the full truth about fullness in God. What will we find and how should this reshape the way we approach this question in the first place?

The person and work of Jesus Christ

Paul writes his letter to the Colossians chiefly outlining the implications of the person and work of Christ for Christians, both doctrinally and practically [1]. He lays down foundational truths about Christ in 1:13-23 that shape the rest of his letter. God speaks to us by his Spirit through the letter the very same truths (for his person and work does not change): who Christ is and what he has done – especially for the Church and for the Christian – and how these truths must shape our theology and action.

Paul begins his teaching in Colossians [2] with an emphasis on the supremacy of Christ (1:18), both in creation (1:15-17) and redemption (1:18-20). Firstly, Christ’s person has supremacy over creation and the Church. Christ is supreme over all Creation because he is not part of it: He is the agent in creation; the one for whom creation was made (1:16); indeed, he is the very image of the invisible God (1:15). He is supreme over all things in the universe, for he is before all things, and in him all things hold together (1:17).

Christ is supreme over the Church because he is beginning of it, since he is the firstborn from among the dead (1:18). Indeed, he is the supreme head of the Church (1:18). He is thus also the very agent in the new-creation, which not only involves the Church, but also the entire created order (1:20).

Secondly, the work of Christ in reconciling to God all of creation and the Church is supreme. Christ’s work in Creation is supreme because it is only through Christ’s work on the cross that ‘all things in heaven and on earth’ have been reconciled to God (1:20). His work perfectly achieves God’s will [3]: Through Christ’s blood peace has been re-established between God and all things, in the sense that the proper order of relationships between God and creation is now restored, since all things are being brought under the headship of Christ as a result of his resurrection [4].

Christ’s work in the Church is also supreme, because it alone brings about perfect forgiveness with God (1:14, 28): The Colossian Christians were enemies alienated from God, but now they are reconciled and before him as holy in his sight. This has been accomplished because of the death of Christ’s physical body (1:21-22).

This central passage of Colossians (1:13-23) must be understood within its wider context in the letter if we are to appreciate how it teaches us.

Paul firstly applies it to combats various heresies that threaten the Colossians (1:24 – 3:4).

Since the mystery of God’s will is now revealed in Christ, in whom alone is found all knowledge of God (2:2-3), then the Colossians, along with us, should not be taken captive by false teaching that glorifies human knowledge (2:4, 8) as the means to reaching God. All the fullness of God dwells in Christ, and because Christians are in Christ, we have complete fullness in God through him alone (2:9).

The Colossian Christians should not let anyone judge them by Judaistic legalism [5]. The old law only foreshadowed Christ’s work (2:17) that has now brought the complete reality of forgiveness (2:13-15). So too, through our unity with his death and resurrection, sin has been completely dealt with for us (2:11-12). Therefore there is no need to add anything to Christ’s work for our salvation or fullness in God.

Since we have also been made pure from sensual indulgence by our unity with Christ’s death (2:20, 23), we should not submit to human teachings like asceticism [6] in order to be removed from the evil of the flesh. In Christ, the created order is restored to goodness (Col 1:20) [7].

Since Christ is the head of the body that grows as God causes (2:19), we should also not worship angels (2:18) (or saints) as if they are closer to God than Christ. Christ is the image of the invisible God and therefore worthy of the only praise that God deserves.

Instead, we should follow Paul’s application of the truth about Christ to our living, obeying the commands he sets out concerning Christian conduct (3:5-4:6). In view of the fact that our lives are now with Christ in God (3:3-5), and Christ is in us (Col 3:9-11) [8], we should live accordingly: putting to death whatever belongs to our earthly natures (3:5), and living as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved (3:12).

Pentecostalism and fullness in God

Today, Pentecostalism is an example of a modern movement that begun with a quest to know the full truth about fullness in God. From its origin it still today proclaims the promise of a fuller-gospel involving an experience of God that is not obtained in Christ alone. Pentecostals believe that the extra work of the Spirit after salvation, which is available to all Christians but not common to all, provides a unique fullness in God for those who have been fortunate enough to understand, believe and be blessed with this second stage in spirituality prior to Christ’s coming.

But what does Colossians teach us about the person and work of Christ? The amazing thing about the Apostle Paul’s letter here is that although his central theme is fullness in God, he does not mention the Holy Spirit at all throughout the letter. But it is not as though the role and work of the Spirit is not important to Paul. Far from it: throughout the New Testament, Paul teaches more about the work of the Spirit than any other author. Clearly for him and throughout the Bible the Spirit of God plays a vital role in everything God does, including his work in creation since the beginning and his vital role in bringing about the New Creation [9].

But what Paul’s letter to the Colossians should show Pentecostals is that the work of the Spirit is not central and it is not supreme, and it is not even an element that is needed in order to complete the 'full' gospel. Actually, work of the Holy Spirit is not a part of the gospel itself (which is the work of Christ for us). But the work of the Spirit is the fruit of the gospel (which is the work of Christ in us).

It is because of the gospel -- that Jesus of Nazareth died for our sins (as Christ) and rose for our justification (as Lord) -- that he ascended to now from God's throne in heaven send his Spirit into our hearts in order to now rule over sin from within us (the fruit of the gospel, and the result/response to it).

But when coming to teach about Christian fullness in God, Paul is perfectly happy to neglect to even mention the Holy Spirit. And he goes as far as declaring that it is in Christ alone that all the fullness of God dwells (1:19), and that all Christians – without exception – have been given “fullness in him”: that is, we have fullness – fullness in God – through our union with Christ in whom all the fullness of God dwells. In other words, Christians are “in Christ” = in “fullness of God”.

The book of Colossians teaches us that Christ Jesus our Lord is supreme over all else, and his finished work on the cross has supremely achieved for us perfect reconciliation to God. We are in need of nothing else to bring us fullness in God. We should look to no one else, nor any other work for filling in him. We have it all in Christ, and in response we should live a holy life in view of the fact that Christ Jesus himself lives in us, and we “have been filled in him” (Col 2:10).

“For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (1:19)...

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

and you have been filled in him...” (Col 2:9-10)

End notes

[1] These doctrinal and practical sections of the letter come between personal comments at the beginning (1:1–12) and end of His letter (4:7-18).

[2] To be sure, Paul begins his letter to the Colossians by thanking God for their faith and love (1: 3-4), and telling them of the substance and reasons for his prayers for them (1:9-12). He prays in order that they might be giving thanks to the Father who has “brought them into the kingdom of the Son” (1:13 – emphasis mine). However, immediately at this point he begins a section of the letter where he explains the person and work of the Son – Jesus Christ (1:13-23).

[3] Ephesians 1:9-10

[4] This appears to be what is meant when this verse (1:20) is compared to Ephesians 1:10, where it is seen that in Christ “all things in heaven and on earth [will be brought] together under on head, even Christ”: signifying that through the work of the cross all things will be brought under the just rulership of God. This work is complete, though the process is only beginning now through the preaching of the gospel, whereby people come under the headship of Christ. This process will be consummated at the second coming of Christ to judge, when everything else will finally be brought under his headship for judgment.

[5] The Judaistic legalism at the time of Paul’s letter involved circumcision (2:11, 3:11), ordinances (2:14), foods, holidays (2:16) and the like.

[6] Asceticism in the time of Paul’s letter involved regulations about the abstinence from various elements of God’s created order which were viewed as being essentially evil (2:16, 20-23).

[7] Confer with 1 Timothy 4:1-5.

[8] Also see Col 1:27.

[9] See Creation and Spirit: The work of the Holy Spirit in our world and God’s - http://talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com/2010/10/creation-and-spirit-work-of-holy-spirit.html

References

Horton, Stanley M (General Editor), Systematic Theology, Logion Press: Springfield, Missouri, 1995

Bibliography

Bruce, F, F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon and to the Ephesians, W M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1984

Jensen, I, L. Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament, Moody Press, Chicago: 1981

Creation and Spirit: The work of the Holy Spirit in our world and God’s

2010-10-29T23:16:00.001+11:00

Creation by ‘the word’ of God is a well-understood part of the Bible’s account by Christians generally: As Psalms 33:6 says, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made…” But what is the role of the Spirit of God in creation, exactly? And what is his role in all things?

Attention to the work of the Holy Spirit has often concentrated on his gifts and miraculous workings, such as healing. It is in the realm of the ‘spiritual’ that we often focus when looking to see the Spirit at work. Does the Bible share such a singular focus when highlighting the Spirit’s work? What type of picture do the Scriptures paint when read in their entirely about the working of the Holy Spirit in the world?

The ‘Wind’ or the ‘Breath’ of God

Progressively throughout the Bible’s account of creation we see the development of the revelation of the Spirit of God as the central agent involved in all of God’s work in the universe he has made, from creation through to new creation.

The Hebrew word for ‘spirit’ literally connotes the movement of air, and so may be translated simply as ‘wind’. What is often translated in our English Bibles as the “Spirit” of God should perhaps be translated more literally as the “wind” of God. Genesis 1:2 is a prime example. The context dictates the intended meaning of the root word, so that in Hebrew this verse would read to the Jew: “the wind of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

As the Bible’s narrative develops it becomes clear that a ‘wind’ from God and the ‘breath’ of God have a central purpose in God’s own acts of creation and recreation. From Genesis 1 onwards, the activity of God seems to involve – quite mysteriously at first – the agency of this ‘wind’ or ‘breath’ that comes from the LORD (Genesis 1:2; 8:1; Exodus 14:21 Numbers 11:31).

And in this way a ‘wind’ becomes in the Scripture a sign and symbol of God’s activity by his Holy Spirit (2 Samuel 22:11; Psalms 18:10; Psalms 104:3; John 3:8; Acts 2:2). So too, the ‘breath’ is used throughout the Bible as a symbol of God’s activity by his Spirit (Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 37:5 ff; John 20:22)

The ‘Spirit’ and the ‘Word’ of God

The significance of this becomes apparent as the Scriptural revelation unfolds, portraying a deep intrinsic relationship between the ‘Spirit’ of God and the ‘Word’ of God. The LORD works, or affects his will, in one way but by two means. The one way that he works is with his mouth – figurative language (an anthropomorphism) for God working by speaking his will into existence. But from his mouth come two things that together are two means by which his one work and one will are carried out: from the mouth of the LORD come his Word and his Spirit.

Notice Isaiah 34:16: “For the mouth of the LORD has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them.” Here are some further examples of where we see this. The following passages show this close connection between the work of both the word and spirit, proceeding from the mouth of the LORD:

“Then the channels of the sea were seen; the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the LORD [mouth/word], at the blast of the breath [or ‘spirit’] of his nostrils” (2 Samuel 22:16; cf. Psalms 18:15).

“By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath [or ‘spirit’] of his mouth all their host” (Psalms 33:6).

“He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs; who can stand before his cold? He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind [or ‘spirit’] blow and the waters flow” (Psalms 147:17-18).

“Seek and read from the book of the LORD: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the LORD has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them” (Isaiah 34:16).

“He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked” (Isaiah 11:4).

“…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” (Ephesians 6:17; cf. Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16); compare, “He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God… Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations” (Revelation 19:13-15; cf. Revelation 1:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:8).

God’s word carries his command: his decree as to what will be done. His Spirit carries his power to enact that command and so is his agency by which that decree is done.

The Word of God is not the Spirit of God, though the two of course cannot be separated. Both proceed from God together. In order, the Word of God comes first, because it proceeds directly from the will of God who commands it; it is because he speaks his word that his breath is generated. So the Spirit proceeds from both God and the Word of God, just as the spoken word immediately generates breath. And the Spirit carries the Word of God (as breath carries the spoken word), just as the Word of God carries the will or decree of God.

And so it is said in Scripture both that God sends out his word and that he sends out his Spirit to perform his work:

He sends his Word:
“He sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly;” (Psalms 147:15) “So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

He sends his Spirit:
“When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground;” (Psalms 104:30) “Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live" (Ezekiel 37:9).

The agency of the Spirit

We are more familiar with the role of God the Father and of the Son in creation and salvation, partly because of summary verses readily found in the New Testament that explain: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Corinthians 8:6; cf. Romans 11:36)

Here we see that while all things are from and for God the Father, all things are at the same time through God the Son. It is through the Son that all things exist because in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). And all things hold together in the Son because “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” (Hebrews 1:3)

Hebrews 1:3 is significant also for the role of the Holy Spirit in God’s work, because against the backdrop of the Old Testament revelation on the relationship between the Word and Spirit of God, it shows us the central role in creation of “the word of his power.”

It is by “the word of his power” that the universe was created to begin with, which as we have seen involved the agency of the Spirit of God who affected that word of God. The power of the word of God comes by the activity of the Holy Spirit, by whom God’s word is accomplished in the world. In other words, all things from God are done by the agency of the Holy Spirit.

To summarize: All things come from God through his word by the agency of his Spirit, whose activity and power makes effectual the word which God send it for his purpose. Let me give a few examples of this throughout God’s work that we see revealed through Scripture:

Creation, life and death by the Holy Spirit

Clearly present at the beginning, and involved in creation, the Spirit as the wind or breath of God was moving over the waters (Genesis 1:2, where the ‘spirit’ of God is literally the ‘wind’ or ‘breath’ of God). And in fact, Psalm 33:6 continues, “…their starry host [were made] by the breath [or ‘spirit’] of his mouth.” Job, describing God’s power over creation, which trembles at his rebuke, declares, “by his wind the heavens were made fair” (ESV Job 26:13, KJV: ‘his spirit’, NIV: ‘his breath’).

And even clearer from the beginning, the creation of people occurred by God’s Spirit: “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7; cf. Isaiah 42:5) Elihu speaking to Job says, “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4).

Not only does all life come by the Holy Spirit, also “by the breath of God they perish, and by the blast of his anger they are consumed” (Eliphaz in Job 4:9). In direct reversal of his work in Genesis 2:7, the Psalmist says, “When you take away their breath [‘spirit’], they die and return to their dust.” (Psalms 104:29) “The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath [or ‘spirit’] of the LORD blows on it; surely the people are grass. (Isaiah 40:7). Just as the LORD gives and takes away (Job 1:21), so also the Spirit breathes life and takes again that breath away.

Renewal by the Holy Spirit

Thankfully it is also in mercy that God by his Spirit brings from death, new life, in order to renew and so preserve his creation: “When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.” (Psalms 104:30)

Genesis’ account in the opening chapters of the Bible is followed by an account of Adam’s line, whose children are born only to die, having been created in the likeness of their father whose sin brought God’s judgment of death (Genesis 5:1-5).

In the next account in Genesis, of the renewal of the world by water in Noah’s time, again a wind from God, moving over the waters, brings dry ground to the feet of a new creation that emerges from the Ark (Genesis 8:1). Noah’s children however spread the effects of sin and judgment over the face of the whole earth (Genesis 11:8-9).

The book of Genesis ends with the account of Jacob, a generation promised to bring God’s blessing to the whole world, but who after Joseph face slavery under Egypt. But when he remembers his promise to Abraham, he again acts, this time to redeem Israel from Egypt, by a wind from God moving over the waters, causing God’s people to walk through the red sea on dry land and into their new world of service to God (Exodus 14:21). Moses responds in song: “By the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up…"The enemy boasted…But you blew with your breath, and the sea covered them” (Exodus 15:8-10).

Judgment by the Holy Spirit

God brought Israel up out of Egypt through water by the Holy Spirit so they would live and worship him as his own people. But after giving them his law to sanctify them, as he led them through the desert toward his promised paradise, in an act of judgment he provides for them the very food they crave having grumbled against Moses, “a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea” (Numbers 11:31).

Sadly from their very exit of Egypt onwards, again and again throughout their history, Israel rebelled against God’s Spirit who had acted to redeem and lead them into their inheritance, so much so that Psalmist can only in praise of God appeal for mercy to upon the basis of his covenant faithfulness for a future salvation (Psalm 106:6-47).

Isaiah also attributes Israel’s history to the work of the Holy Spirit, and their judgment to rebellion against him: “In his love and mercy he redeemed them… yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them. Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people … Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand, who divided the waters before them… they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD…” (Isaiah 63:9-14)

A new judgment by the Holy Spirit

The prophet Isaiah spoke about one who would come not only come bring salvation, but also by the Spirit judgment: “he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath [or ‘spirit’] of his lips he shall kill the wicked.” (Isaiah 11:4; cf. 11:15). And again, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations” (Isaiah 42:1). The Holy Spirit will be the agent by which Christ brings his final judgment. Just as God’s final judgment will be executed through the mighty Word of God, it will also come by his powerful Spirit. For example, Paul describes God’s judgment of the lawless one, whom, “the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath [or ‘spirit’] of his mouth” (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

A new renewal by the Holy Spirit

But thankfully the Spirit will also bring for God’s people through judgment, salvation: “The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a [or ‘the’] spirit of judgment and a [or ‘the’] spirit of fire” (Isaiah 4:4). Isaiah foretold the very thing John the Baptist spoke of when he said, “"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11; cf. Luke 3:16).

Comparable with both the agency of water (for washing/cleansing) and of fire (for refinement/judgment), Christ will baptize with the agency of the Spirit. Christ who will pour out the Holy Spirit on his people will by him make them clean and consequently accepted by God; that is, by giving them his Spirit they will have forgiveness of sins (Cf. Malachi 3:1-6; 4:1; Acts 2:36-38).

In the new age of the Spirit the Lord Jesus washes us clean from sin by a baptism that is not merely outward with ceremonial water, but is inward, by the Holy Spirit, and whose outpouring on God’s people brings spiritual regeneration and renewal:

“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4-7).

A new life, new death and new creation by the Holy Spirit

Ezekiel, at a time when eventually Israel were exiled and driven by the Spirit back into slavery to Babylon, foretold a day when, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezekiel 36:25-27).

The Holy Spirit brings a new work in the hearts of his people: “circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit” (Romans 2:29); “by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code” (Romans 7:6; cf. Romans 6:17; 8:2-10); or in other words: “if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation.” (2 Corinthians 5:17; cf. Galatians 6:15)

And not only that, he will also affect a new work in their flesh too; there will also be a new work of creation in an age of resurrection from death and judgment: “Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people…And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live (Ezekiel 37:11-14)”. Just as the Apostle Paul said in his letter to the Romans: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you” (Romans 8:11).

The Spirit’s work in all things

We’ve seen how the Holy Spirit works in the world. Against this backdrop, it is clearly a mistake to think of the Spirit’s activity in the world as involving a realm that is separate from the created physical universe. In the Bible’s universe, we do not actually see the Holy Spirit specializing more in the ‘spiritual’ than the ‘natural’ world.

To look for the Spirit’s activity primarily in the miraculous betrays a mistaken view of the Holy Spirit as working chiefly by intervention into the created world, usually with extraordinary effects: he manifests his presence with works of power that are super-natural. We may also seek the Spirit within the inner world of our emotions and subjective experience, betraying a tendency to think of the Spirit’s role in terms of the intangible world of feelings as opposed to the physical world of nature or the rational world of the mind, instead desiring after divine and personal encounters with God in search of experiences of his activity in ways that transcend the everyday order of the world.

But it is a mistake to think of the Holy Spirit’s work in the world with this type of false-separation between creation and spirit. The Spirit is involved in all things, just as God is behind all things. The Bible affirms that from and for God the Father are all things, who through his Son, who is the Word of God, are all things and through whom do all things exist, and that all these things are done by the power of his Holy Spirit.

Big and small, common and extraordinary, the grass growing, the leaves falling, storm and sunset, all of our living and moving, birth and rebirth, death and resurrection and eternity in the new creation: There is nothing that exists or comes to exist or is done in the universe that does not involve the agency of his Holy Spirit; all things are from God and there is nothing that he does not do by his Spirit. Our world is God’s world and nothing in all of his creation is isolated from and does not depend on the presence and power of his Spirit.

What is Holy Spirit: Who is He? - II

2010-10-01T21:22:00.009+10:00

Who is the Holy Spirit? Firstly, Christians know the Holy Spirit is in terms of his relations, his name and his nature. But we also know the Spirit by his personal properties. God's Spirit, for example, is "the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD" (Isaiah 11:2).

Although there are as many properties of the Spirit as there are of God himself, there are a few that are in particular ascribed to him distinctly. John Owen in The Holy Spirit outlines three, summarised here:

1. The Spirit of Truth

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding (Isaiah 11:2). The Spirit searches all things, the Spirit knows all things, the Spirit understands all things: including the depths of the wisdom and knowledge and understanding of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). It is also the Spirit who is the author and giver of wisdom, knowledge and understanding in others (1 Corinthians 12:11).

And so we are given the Spirit as Christians in order that we may be given understanding of what God has given us (1 Corinthians 2:12). He is the one who fulfills that great promise, "they will all be taught by God" (John 6:45). Accordingly, teaching is the great work of Holy Spirit; he alone is the great teacher of the Church. The many other teachers in the church cannot in fact teach at all without him to any real spiritual benefit in others. But the Holy Spirit teaches his Church with or without teachers (Jeremiah 31:34; 1 John 2:27).

In one direct continued discourse, Jesus to his disciples purposely instructed them in the nature and work of the Spirit, designed to inform them who the Comforter or Counselor was and what he would do for them (John 14-16). He is the Spirit of Truth, and here we find that the Father sent the Spirit to teach. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ himself, and would be with Christians in Christ's absence, taking not only his place but also his role as their teacher, reminding them of everything that he himself had taught them.

2. The Spirit of Sovereignty

As the wind itself is not under our direction or at our disposal, so the Spirit is sovereign in his giving of salvation (John 3:8) and in his giving of all things from God, including gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11). The Spirit is the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord, having the freedom of choice only possessed by the God who is Lord over all. We are given God's Spirit as Christians so that he might sovereignly work through us what he determines to be for the common good of his body (1 Corinthians 12:7).

3. The Spirit of Power

The Spirit of God alone has the power that enables him to act according to the guidance of his understanding and the determination of his sovereign will. He is the Spirit of Power (Isaiah 11:2). We are given the Spirit as Christians so that we will have God's power at work in us: God himself enabling us to believe God's word (1Thessalonians 1:5), enabling us to have faith in Christ (Ephesians 3:16-17), enabling us to have love and self-discipline (2 Timothy 1:7).

--

Owen, John. The Holy Spirit--His Gifts and Power. Christian Focus Publications 2004, p. 69-72.

Worship: The End for which God's Word is given

2010-09-29T20:55:00.004+10:00

We know that the end for which we were made is to worship and glorify God. It's surprising then that within Christianity, worship is a topic often surrounded today by much confusion. It's a key concern for Pentecostalism, as it should be among all true religion in the world. What is true religious worship and therefore what is true religion?

1. Foundation of true worship: God in himself

The reason for our worship is not merely what God has done for us, or what God is to us; but the reason our worship of God is an absolute duty is what God is in himself.

John Owen explains that it is the nature of God, his very being, that is the foundation of all true worship:

Because he is; that is, because he is an infinitely glorious, good, wise, holy, powerful, righteous, self-subsisting, self-sufficient, and all-sufficient being; the fountain and author of all being and good; the first cause, last end, and sovereign Lord of all; therefore, he is to be worshipped: therefore, are we to admire, adore, and love him; to praise, to trust and to fear him. [1]

Of course we worship God because of what he has done for us and is to us, but the principle reason for that worship, and what makes it true worship, is who and what God is. God is the great I AM; that name by which we are to know him. We worship him because he is I AM WHO I AM.

2. Rule of true worship: God's word about himself

And so our worship of God, owed him because of his divine nature, must be directed according to the revelation he has made of his being and nature to us. That is, if our worship is not ruled by God's revelation, if it does not conform to his word about himself, it is rebellion and wickedness.

The end for which the revelation of God is given through the Scriptures is that it would direct us to worship God; that is, the purpose of God's word to us is that we would respond to the true God with the obedience of faith in his word.

Our worship must therefore be a faith response of obedience to the Gospel, God's revelation of himself in the Scriptures. Otherwise we fail to worship under his rule: such worship dishonours the true and living God, is false religion, dead spirituality and idolatry.

Pentecostalism and true worship

Pentecostals may know that the end for which we were made is to worship and glorify God. But do you know that the end for which God's word is given is that it would direct your worship so that it does actually glorify God? The true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:23).

--

Owen, John. The Holy Spirit--His Gifts and Power. Christian Focus Publications 2004, p. 61-62.

[1] Ibid.

What is Holy Spirit: Who is he? - I

2010-09-23T21:41:00.004+10:00

What does the name ‘Spirit’ signify? The words translating Spirit from the original languages in the Bible are ambiguous, signifying a movement of air (wind, breath, breeze).

John Owen in The Holy Spirit answers:

“…It is sufficiently evident that there is in the Scripture, a full and complete revelation of the Spirit of God, as one singular, and every way distinct from every thing else denoted by that name; and that whatever is affirmed of this Holy Spirit, relates either to his person or operations.” (p. 55).

Though often simply called “the Spirit” in the Bible, in regard to his properties he is named the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of holiness and the Spirit of grace. And regarding his relations he is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Son. And in regard to his person he is called the Holy Spirit.

His Relations: Persons of the Godhead

Throughout Scripture the Spirit is called either the Spirit of God or Spirit of the LORD (including in reference to God, “your good Spirit” or the “Spirit of your Father”), speaking of his relation to God the Father.

In the New Testament the Spirit is also called the Spirit of God’s Son, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of the Lord, speaking of his relation to God the Son.

Just as the Son is called the Son of God, the Spirit is the Spirit of God. And just as the Spirit has eternally been God’s own Spirit, the Spirit has eternally been the Spirit of the Son who himself has eternally been one with the Father. Speaking of the Prophets in the Old Testament, before the coming of Christ, the Apostle Peter refers to the “Spirit of Christ in them” because the Holy Spirit has eternally existed as both the ‘Spirit of the Son’ and the ‘Spirit of God’ (1 Peter 1:10-11).

His Person: Name and Nature

The Spirit is also called the Holy Spirit, not only because his work relates to sanctification, but also more eminently, because his nature is holy. Just as God is himself ‘holy’ and is called the ‘Holy One’, so too God’s Spirit is called the Holy Spirit. Since he is God’s own Spirit he has God’s own nature, God’s own holiness.

God may command his holy ones (angels) to execute his commands, whether in mercy or in righteous judgment. But also in his righteous judgment there are some actions brought about by God’s decree that are not brought about by him directly; that is, they are not brought about by God’s own Spirit, but by evil spirits.

By God’s permission these actions are opposed to the Holy Spirit and are carried out by evil spirits acting upon persons or things, often decreed by God as punishment for wickedness, though not always (cf. Job 1). A famous example is in 1 Samuel 16:14-15, 19:9; an evil spirit is appointed and commissioned by God to punish Saul (cf. 1 Samuel 10:6, 9). This is explained more in God, Evil and Sovereignty.

But there is no good that God works that is not done by God directly; that is, God does it by the Holy Spirit. All spiritual benefits come through the Spirit. Whether mercy or grace, whatever good God works in us is by his Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

--

Owen, John. The Holy Spirit--His Gifts and Power. Christian Focus Publications 2004, p. 55-60.

Gifts of the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 and Pentecostals

2010-09-19T21:54:00.002+10:00

The Apostle Paul gives the ignorant Corinthians one criteria to determine genuine Christian spirituality: Holy spirituality looks like people confessing Jesus as Lord. Formerly they had been led and influenced be speechless idols. Now the power of the Spirit had led them to confess Jesus as their Lord. (v 1-3). This is the first thing they need to realize because it is the mark of what is actually genuinely spiritual.

Spirituality begins and ends with the Lordship of Jesus. His Lordship is what spiritual gifts are all about. In v 4-6 it is this same Spirit, the same Lord, this same God, who gives the diversity of the different gifts and service and workings in all of us. And all given for the good of us all, his church.

God is not only the author of spiritual gifts (and not us), they are also his working (not ours). And not only that, he uses the gifts he has given us to serve the good of others (not of ourselves directly).

What is Pentecostal spirituality? Whether or not we speak in tongues? Why are spiritual gifts so important to Pentecostals? Do spiritual gifts increase our own experience of spirituality? Are they given by God to esteem us? Do we become more and more spiritual, the more work we do in the church?

What is repeated and emphasised by Paul throughout the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 is the sovereignty of the Spirit; the Lordship of Jesus. To one is given this gift, to another that. But all are the work of the one and same Spirit: the Spirit who led us to confess Jesus as Lord.

And now he leads us to serve others with what he has given us. And he gives as he determines. He is Lord.

Why the Holy Spirit matters: Pentecostalism and true spirituality

2010-09-10T22:05:00.007+10:00

Authenticity is naturally of importance whenever anything may be of significant worth. Purchasing an item of gold may be gain only if the gold is genuine. Otherwise you suffer a loss, having traded your money for fool’s gold. Worse still, the dealer is a deceiver and a fraud.

Beginning Book I of The Holy Spirit, John Owen shows why this subject matters so greatly by pointing to, not only the absolute dependance of our salvation on the person and work of the Spirit (along with genuine Christianity, the gospel, Christian growth, and condemnation), but also to the many false claims of the Spirit’s work.

1. False spirituality

No area exists with greater levels of deceit than in the realm of spirituality: things pretend be God, or of God, but are not. And the reason is no mystery: The greater the value of a thing (and there is nothing of greater worth that God’s own Spirit), the more often false attempts will be made to represent it. And so the Holy Spirit’s work is often counterfeited. And the greater something’s value the more horrible its abuse. Consequently there is nothing more horrible than false spirituality.

The most visible gift of the Holy Spirit under the Old Covenant was prophecy. But throughout the Old Testament there were more false prophets than true. On the one hand were those who openly served other gods (Deuteronomy 18:20; 1 Kings 18:26); but on the other hand were those who spoke in the name of the Lord, and declared falsely to be inspired by God’s Spirit (Jeremiah 28:2; 1 Kings 22:26; Ezekiel 13:14).

Under the New Covenant it was the gospel that was given by immediate revelation from the Spirit (and declared by his enabling, made effectual by his power and often attested to by miraculous signs from him). Unsurprisingly, false teachers competed by pretending to the very same source of authority. And so the Apostles likened false teachers in this new age to the false prophets of old (2 Peter 2:1) who also claimed divine inspiration.

Consequently, Jesus and the Apostles warned of ‘lying spirits’ and urged Christians ‘not to believe every spirit’, not to give credit to doctrine simply because of an appeal to immediate revelation, but to ‘test the spirits’ because Satan’s work is disguised as the Holy Spirit’s (cf. Matthew 24:24).

And in the very place where we are commanded to this type of proactive caution regarding ‘every spirit’, we are given one very simple means. The Apostle John writes:

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood. (1 John 4:6).

With definitive clarity the Apostle puts himself and his fellow Apostles up as the litmus test, whereby we can know who and what is from God, or not: “whoever is not from God does not listen to us;” that is, does not listen to the Apostles whose word we have now in New Testament Scriptures. Whoever is from God or knows God, listens to the Apostles: that is how we recognize the Spirit of truth. Everything else is the spirit of falsehood. Or to put it another way, the Spirit without the word is false spirituality.

2. Dead spirituality

Owen’s work also provided an apologetic against those who practice a form of Christianity while all the time denying the supernatural: this is “hostility to the Spirit of God”, and since it is a “sin of despising his person, and rejecting his work now, [it] is of the same nature with the idolatry of old, and the Jews’ rejection of the person of the Son”.

“The doctrine of the Spirit, and his work on the souls of men, in conviction of sin; in godly sorrow and humiliation; in regeneration and sanctification; the supplies of this grace, and his assistance in prayer, have been preached in the world. Men have been taught that the great concerns of their peace, comfort, and assurance, depend on his sacred influences. They have been urged to examine themselves as to their personal experience of these things; and they have been solemnly assured, that if there be not an effectual work of the Spirit on their hearts, ‘they cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Multitudes in every age have received these as sacred truths and are well persuaded, that they have found them realised in their experience: but all these things are called in question by some; they look upon them as ‘cunningly devised fables’, as incredible, irrational, and unintelligible notions.” [1]

The Jews had the word of God, and inspired tradition, and reason and sense. They diligently studied their Old Testament Scriptures. And yet the Spirit of God rejected them. So too we who have the New Testament, but if only the letter, if we only philosophise about it, without the Holy Spirit bringing us to obedience to the Lord Jesus of whom the Scriptures testify (John 5:39-40), we are no better than them, who though “they call themselves Jews, and are not, are a synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) Or to put it another way, the word without the Spirit is dead spirituality.

Pentecostalism and false spirituality

The subject of the Spirit matters so enormously because there are so many conflicting messages about the work of the Spirit. The world itself is full of differing views about ‘spirituality’ and unfortunately, so is the church. And we are told to take warning. There is only one true and living Spirit, God's holy Spirit. Consequently, there is only one true gospel, one message in Christianity, one teaching from God. But in the church today we see multiple conflicting teachings about the Spirit, so that as foretold, faithful Christians need to hold their leaders to the test.

The Pentecostal movement boasts of living and vibrant spirituality, but runs head long into the risk of false spirituality. It was the Holy Spirit speaking to the church of Sardis who said, “you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Revelation 3:1). Pentecostals and charismatic Christians should take care not to ignore this warning, because confidence in an emphasis on the Spirit’s work is misplaced confidence. The more the claim to the Spirit’s work, the more careful testing required. The only thing that counts for true spirituality is “listening to” the Apostles (1 John 4:6): “This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

A Pentecostal may happily affirm that the ‘word without the Spirit’ is dead spirituality, but equally so the ‘Spirit without the word’ is false spirituality. The charismatic emphasis on direct and immediate revelation from the Holy Spirit in separation from and in isolation to the word of the Scriptural gospel puts Pentecostalism into this very camp.

Many Pentecostal 'prophets' speak in the name of the Lord, claiming to be inspired by God’s Spirit. But much of their teaching fails to listen to the Apostolic doctrine of the New Testament Scriptures. They are therefore, loathed as I am to admit it, false teachers. The 'full gospel' of 'divine healing' teachers and the 'prosperity gospel' of the 'Word of Faith' movement are obvious and stark examples.

But of more broad relevance is the two-tiered Christianity of everyday Pentecostalism. This comes from 'second-blessing' teachers, who insist on the importance of a subsequent step in Christian experience from conversion/sanctification (in order to receive the full work of the Spirit in power). This teaching puts mainstream Pentecostal preachers squarely into the realm of false teaching because this is a different doctrine(and indeed a different gospel) from what we are given by the Apostles as inspired by God through the pages of the New Testament. All Christians today should take great care to ‘test' this spirit to find out whether or not this is really from the Lord, who said "I will pour out my Spirit on all..." (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17).

Again I quote the Apostle John:

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood. (1 John 4:6).

---

Owen, John. The Holy Spirit--His Gifts and Power. Christian Focus Publications 2004, p. 47-54.

[1] Ibid, p. 54.

Why the Holy Spirit matters: Christianity and the importance of the Spirit

2010-09-07T20:36:00.004+10:00

In a passage made famous for its teaching about spiritual gifts, Paul begins by stating emphatically, 'No one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.' (1 Corinthians 12:3). Today, the Holy Spirit is well known for his role as author and distributor of gifts. But to begin with, our very faith in Jesus and our profession of faith in Jesus (the two always go together if our Christianity is sincere) is a change that is effected in us by the Holy Spirit: to come under the subjection of the Lordship of Jesus is a work of the Spirit of God that no one is sufficient for themselves.

In Book I of The Holy Spirit, John Owen outlines what he calls 'General principles concerning the Holy Spirit and his work'. And he begins with something of an outline as to why the subject of the Spirit really does matter so very much. And I've tried to summarise the first part of that outline here with five reasons why the Holy Spirit matters:

1. Our salvation depends on the Holy Spirit

God gives his Spirit to save sinners. Two promises run throughout the Scriptures in salvation history from the beginning of sin: 1. God's Son would take on our nature and suffer for us, and 2. God's Spirit would make effectual to us his obedience and suffering for us. These 'two great means of recovering fallen man' are: 1. God gave his Son for us and 2. God gives his Spirit to us.

2. Genuine Christianity depends on the Holy Spirit

The reception of the Holy Spirit is the mark of genuine Christianity. Jesus promised to send the Spirit, not only to the Apostles and first Christians, but also to 'all who would believe in him through their word' (John 17:20). Christ sends the Spirit to supply his own absence, and ultimately to bring us to himself. 'If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ' (Romans 8:9).

3. The work of the gospel depends on the Holy Spirit

The effectiveness of the gospel depends on the Spirit. The gospel is itself called the 'ministry of the Spirit' (2 Corinthians 3:6-8). Without the Spirit the gospel would be dead and ineffectual. And to separate the gospel from the Spirit is to reject it, and to kill it. (Isaiah 59:21).

4. The Christian life depends on the Holy Spirit

Whatever God works in us, God works by his Spirit. And there is nothing done by us that is acceptable to God but that which is an effect of the Spirit's operation.

5. Condemnation depends on the Holy Spirit

The only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spirit, because -- as God has no other Son to offer for our sins if he be rejected -- God has no other Spirit to make Christ's work effectual to us if the Holy Spirit is despised.

The importance of the Spirit

Today Pentecostals continue to emphasise the importance of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism emerged as a movement, now over a century ago, intent on bringing the role of the Spirit back into focus, primarily because it felt that his work had been neglected in the Church largely since 'early times'. And to be sure, the Pentecostal desire has got something unequivocally right.

The importance of the subject is immeasurable because the necessity of the Holy Spirit's work is absolute: Our salvation, Christianity itself, the gospel, Christian growth and the condemnation of the unforgiven, all depend critically on the Holy Spirit, both his person and operation. The Spirit matters because God gives the Spirit to save us.

---

Owen, John. The Holy Spirit--His Gifts and Power. Christian Focus Publications 2004, p. 39-47.

God over Google: Pentecostalism and our search for answers

2010-08-29T20:31:00.032+10:00

There's a generation now turning to the web to find the answers we once asked our parents. Good thing God is indeed God over Google.

I recall being a younster at age 11 when first becoming interested and puzzled by youth leaders describing Pentecostalism and asking me about my lack of experience with Spirit-baptism. After being asked on a mission by one of my leaders, "have you been 'empowered' by the Spirt?", I remember on my return going to my Father, an elder in our bretheren church: "Dad, I want to be empowered by the Spirit."

He gave me a big black reference Bible and showed me how to used the concordance. "Look it up in the Bible" -- seemed like straightforward advice at the time, and I went away feeling that if I could just nail down what the Bible said about this experience, I'd be a step closer to getting what I was obviously missing.

I went straigh back to my bedroom and sat on my bed attempting to look up the word 'empowerment' in the back of this old bible, of course with no joy. And with no idea why I might find nothing under the word 'empower' in the Bible at all, and having nowhere else to turn, I went back to my youth group leaders and friends, asking them for the answers.

That moment of frustration--sitting alone on the bottom of my bunkbed with no adequate access to a proper understanding from either my Father or from the Bible--that was the beginning of what became a 2 year slide into Pentecostalism, as I turned and came more and more under the influence of those with first-hand testimony, relying increasingly on their stories of their experiences.

In September 2006, some fifteen years later, I looked back on that bible flicking moment and had the realisation that if I was that 11 year-old again, but in the present day, I know that now I would have turned at that moment, not straight back to my friends, but first, of course, to Google!

And that's where the idea for this blog came from. And it's the reason I'm continuing to write and post-out to a world of online searchers who are now looking to the web and their social media networks for answers.

I'm looking to be there for those 'young ones' out there who are asking the questions that I once was, who are now going to Google and typing in "how to be empowered by the Spirit?". Hopefully more and more seekers asking these questions will increasingly be finding their way to my site, where they can get some more adequate answers than I first did at that crucial and vulnerable time, now twenty years ago.

The contents of articles in this blog to-date have investigated topics including: the Pentecostal Movement, Pentecostals and their beliefs, the Day of Pentecost, the Charismatic movement and Charismatics, Evangelical beliefs and the Holy Spirit; in particular special focus is given to the origin and history of the Pentecostal movement, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts of the Spirit and miracles, divine healing and the Word of Faith movement, prosperity doctrine and health-wealth teaching, the Praise and Worship movement, guidance, revelation and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

INTRO

What is Pentecostalism

Why talk about it

More information

ORIGINS

Why origin is important

The dawning of Pentecostalism

The history of tongues

The theology of John Wesley

The legacy of Edward Irving

The Holiness movement

Why Pentecostalism began

How Pentecostals saw themselves

Why Pentecostalism was successful

How Pentecostalism developed

Australian Pentecostalism

SPIRIT BAPTISM

What Pentecostals believe

The basis of Pentecostalism

What the Scriptures say

What is it & what it does

The Apostles' experience

The day of Pentecost - The Event

The day of Pentecost - The Promise

The day of Pentecost - The meaning

The examples in Acts - Part I

The examples in Acts - Part II

Tongues and Spirit-baptism

The pattern of tongues in Acts

Why tongues were given

Filled with the Spirit

'Witness' in the Book of Acts

GIFTS

What Pentecostals believe

The Pentecostal basis

John Wimber changes his mind

PROSPERITY

Changing views on money

What Pentecostals believe

How to get really rich

Americanized Christianity

Neither Poverty nor Riches

How to pray

WORSHIP

What Pentecostals believe

The centrality of Preaching

Prophecy & preaching

Music in church

GUIDANCE & DESTINY

What Pentecostals believe

Experiencing guidance

Listening to the Spirit

The Purpose Driven Life

The Gospel Driven Life

PROS & CONS

Positive characteristics

Negative tendencies

BARNETT & JENSEN

The Quest for Power

The Bewildered Believer

What Neo-pentecostals believe

Reading the Bible

The Holy Spirit in John

The Acts Passages

Holy Spirit and Conversion

Weakness and Power

Pentecostals and Conservatives

FOUNDATIONS

John Owen on the Spirit

Where to draw the line

The Answer for Pentecostalism

Starting from the Beginning

The Problem of Predestination

God, Evil & Sovereignty

TESTIMONIES

CORRESPONDANCE

Born again at Pentecost?

Pentecostalism from Wesley?

Prosperity doctrine from Branham?

Why Pentecostals should love John Owen on the Holy Spirit

2010-08-28T14:15:00.002+10:00

Describing the value of reading John Owen (1616-1683) on the Holy Spirit, Sinclair Ferguson gives three emphases in his teaching, showing how they work in harmony and were born from Owen’s awareness of the importance of outlining the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in a ‘multi-dimensional’ way:

1. Experimental focus

The Spirit’s ministry bears fruit in Christian experience. The foundation of Owen’s own ministry and theology were a conviction about the pivotal distinction between the knowledge of truth and the knowledge of the power of the truth (cf. John 5:39-40). For John Owen both knowledge and experience were necessary for actual true godliness. He saw in the Scriptures that it was the work of the Holy Spirit to transform merely intellectual knowledge (‘head-knowledge’) into the experience of the power of the truth (true knowledge).

Owen’s original subject, The Holy Spirit of God, and His Operations, is now accessible in a concise new modern edition (2004) and should be to Pentecostals and the entire charismatic movement a refreshing balance of emphasis on both knowledge and an experimental focus. (Christian Focus Publications’ 2007 edition is titled The Holy Spirit—His Gifts and Power).

2. Theological exposition

Owen’s predecessors had been concerned mainly with the divinity of the Spirit’s identity. Owen carved new ground by also applying himself to how the Spirit works. It is also the work of the Spirit that is the key interest of Pentecostals today and the ongoing question that has been raised by Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement generally. A Pentecostal should read Owen on the Holy Spirit because he is addressing the very subject of central importance to them.

3. Apologetic teaching

Another part of the great value of Owen’s work on the Holy Spirit is that today’s context is scarred by similar errors that Owen faced in his day, and clarifies through his teaching. We evangelicals now also find ourselves dealing with:

a.Ritualism – that has a ‘form of godliness’ but has no experience of its power, being satisfied in the emotion aroused by the mystery of sacramental ceremonies.

b.Rationalism – that denies the reality of the supernatural, being rooted in reason rather than in revelation.

c.Spiritualism – that sidesteps careful study and proper treatment of the biblical evidence, and relies instead on direct experiences as the pathway to revelation from God.

Recommendation

Because of his beautiful balance of these three important dimensions in any treatment on the doctrine of God’s Spirit (experience, exposition and errors), reading John Owen on the Holy Spirit – a work done now over 300 years ago – is likely to help a Pentecostal or charismatic Christian, along with all of us, much more than keeping up with the latest thing on show out the front of Koorong.

J. C. Ryle has summed up my feeling also:

“I assert unhesitatingly that the man who wants to study experimental theology will find no book equal to those of Owen for complete Scriptural and [comprehensive] treatment of the subjects they handle. If you wish to study thoroughly the doctrine of [the Holy Spirit] I make no apology for strongly recommending Owen…”

The language is quite a challenge and don’t let the back blurb put you off. And if a quick preview at Amazon.com is not now on your cards already, stay tuned here because I believe serial summaries and reflections on its 8 sections are in order.

Where to draw the line: the command to break fellowship

2010-08-26T17:26:00.004+10:00

Pentecostals, like most Evangelicals, regard unity as of primary importance, reflecting an entire theme that runs through the Scriptures: unity is where God bestows his blessing (Psalm 133); Christian unity testifies to Christ’s identity and his love for his Church (John 17:23); unity in the Church glorifies God (Romans 15:5-6); we are commanded to be united because there is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:3-6); it is the goal of Christian ministry and edification in the Church (Ephesians 4:11-16).

Against the backdrop of this mountain of teaching on unity in the Bible, including an enormous emphasis in the Bible on oneness, agreeing with one another and putting aside differences, etc, the following verse should zap our attention like static electricity:

“If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15)

Association / unity / partnership

Association is tied to unity. We associate with somebody when we spending time in friendship with that person; it is the very basis of fellowship; it is a mark of a relationship. More formally, we might call ‘associates’ those whom we are in partnership with, the people we work with.

Associate (verb used without object):

to enter into union; unite.
to keep company, as a friend, companion or ally.
to join together as partners or colleagues.

(Dictionary.com)

Christian ‘disassociation’ / Christian disunity

We are accustomed to thinking of the instances when the Bible rebukes Christians for not associating with one another. As already described, the New Testament is very clear on the importance of Christians ‘fellowshipping’ with other Christians regardless or culture, gender, age, class, opinion on disputable matters etc. (Some examples include Acts 10:28; Romans 12:16; 14:1 ff). As a result Christians typically ‘hate’ disunity.

It may be for this reason we think less about, even sidestep, passages such as 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. However such clear commands are given in Scripture for very good reason. There are important and crucial reasons why Christians should, in certain situations, leave churches. So too there are situations in which it is not only good and right, but also imperative and vital that Christians withdraw fellowship or partnership from other Christians.

So it’s well worth treating the subject of Christian disunity a little more seriously. Paul’s command in 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 is a central verse to consider, but it comes in the context of a whole series of similar commands that run through the New Testament.

The command to break fellowship:

1. With Questionable ‘Christians’

1 Corinthians 5:11 is a command for Christians to stop associating with hypocritical ‘Christians’; that is, with anyone who calls himself a Christian but is not living as a Christian. This is to be a judgment on those inside the church whose fruit of wickedness necessitates they be either shipwrecked Christians or otherwise, even false Christians.

Any of a whole list of ungodly lifestyles applies. In 1 Corinthians 5 and others like it Paul specifically lists:

Sexual immorality, including impurity, debauchery and orgies, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders;
Idolatry, including witchcraft;
Hatred, including discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy and slanderers;
Greed, including thieves and swindlers;
Drunkenness.

It should be confronting to us that hatred and the like, along with greed and the like, are listed along side drunkenness, idolatry and sexual immorality. We also see elsewhere that the same model of discipline as in 1 Corinthians 5 applies, for example, to divisiveness:

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:10-11)

In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul commands that with such a one as this in the church, the church should put him out of their fellowship (1 Corinthians 5:2, 13). This expulsion is in reality ‘handing him over to Satan’, but the purpose it at least encouraging. Rather than an ultimate sign of condemnation, this discipline is a last resort attempt at rescue: it is in order that his “sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved.”

It is not only for the good of the church but also for the salvation of the person concerned that Christians should terminate fellowship with such a professing ‘Christian’ who nonetheless continues to walk in wickedness.

We know from Ephesians 5:5 and other statements like it that somebody with such a lifestyle – if characterized and continuing in such habitual sin – was not regarded by Paul as a true Christian.

For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. (Ephesians 5:5-7)

Or in the words of the ESV: ‘do not associate with them’ (Ephesians 5:7, ESV).

In fact, about the Corinthians specifically he writes:

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God… [Therefore] flee from sexual immorality… (1 Corinthians 6:11, 18)

It is vital to realize that in relation to unbelievers, those who make no profession to be Christians, the Bible clearly teaches that Christians should (of course!) continue to associate with them, not only for the sake of the gospel, but also because: 1. their judgment is not our business, and 2. nor is their judgment practically possible by us (1 Corinthians 5:10, 12).

2. With False teachers

Paul and the Apostles apply a similar logic to false teachers as to ‘wicked Christians’: It was in the context of false teachers in Corinth influencing the church there that Paul gave his famous command in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers…Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord…”

Also in similar vein Paul names Hymenaeus, one whom he had “handed over to Satan,” (exact same phrase as applied to the sexually immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5), this time though so that Hymenaeus will be “taught not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 1:20) Later in 2 Timothy 2:17 we find out that Hymenaeus had wandered from the truth, and was teaching a message that would spread like gangrene, saying that the resurrection had already taken place, and in so doing destroying the faith of some. In contrast Paul commands Timothy to ‘fight the good fight’ by ‘holding onto faith and a good conscience.’

2 John 1:10-11 is an example of an even stronger command in this regard:

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching [they do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh], do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

The New Testament actually promises that such false prophets, and false teachers will come into the church, secretly introducing heresies and exploiting the church in their greed with made-up stories. Worse still, many will follow them and bring Christianity into question. These are warnings we should not skim over:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up… (2 Peter 2:1-3)

What such commands indicate is that it is never ‘Christian’ to put unity above purity in the Church. We may ‘hate’ disunity, but we must hate ungodliness and falsehood more. Otherwise such unity jeopardizes the health the church and individual Christians, and thus by trying to save the unity of the church, we will kill it with sin and corruption. Unity for the sake of unity is not unity at all. Unity for the sake of purity is what the Bible commands; that meaning our unity should be applied in an exclusive way – in order to preserve oneself and others as a true and faithful Church.

As a result, obedience to the call of the New Testament to ‘disassociate’ with false or corrupt believers has actually been a God-glorifying trend in Church history that again and again has saved and preserved the true Church from oppression and extinction. The Reformation from the Dark Ages of Catholicism is a well-known example. Thus, Church division (or ‘splits’) are in truth often a God-given grace to preserve true and authentic groups of believers from compromising groups that, backsliding into error or ungodliness, refuse to conform to the truth or holiness (2 Tim 4:3).

3. With True but disobedient Christians

But in 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 we have something different to wicked ‘Christians’ or false teachers:

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

This is a brother. This is not somebody to be regarded as an enemy, as we should a false teacher or a false Christian walking in unashamed wickedness within the Church. This is a loved member: someone part of the family.

However, they are disobedient. They are not following the instructions of the New Testament, not with regard to gross wickedness, but with regard to a matter such as idleness.

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example… Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-13)

This is a simple matter of submission to authority of the Apostle, by following both his direct instruction and his example in the model he laid down for Christian life and godliness. Again, this is clearly a brother in the Lord, though disobedient and in need of warning. The reason for refusing to associate with him is so that he will feel ashamed, and by God’s grace, come to repentance.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-13 is no isolated text in this train of teaching. Acts 5:1-11 is a monumental example of how seriously God wants us to treat holiness among Christians, his Church. Here God himself acts to bring his discipline by striking down Ananias and his wife following an enormous gift of money that they had contributed to the church. They sold their property, giving part of the proceeds to the church, but deceitfully acting as though the money they were giving was the full amount received for the land (Acts 5:1-11). This precedent from God in the Early Church is analogous to the lesson for Israel in Joshua 7 following Achan’s sin following their first steps of entry into the Land promised to Abraham.

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is another significant passage for this subject. Here we have immature, unspiritual Christians who are failing to love one another in the most basic sense in their church meetings. There are divisions, there is self-serving, there is indulgence:

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you…When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. (1 Corinthians 11:18-21)

Again, these are Christians. These are brothers and sisters in the Lord. But again too the Lord’s discipline is no light matter: “many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 11:30). Revelation 2:23 is an even more serious example.

Paul’s advice and encouragement are very significant:

But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When the Lord judges us, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:30-32)

So:

We ought to judge ourselves. This includes Christians judging other Christians. The church ought to judge the church.
Such discipline is for our salvation, so that we will not fall under condemnation. There is a big difference between judgment and condemnation here. One is discipline for the sake of salvation; the other is final punishment without salvation.

Jesus himself instructed that the discipline of a sinful brother in the church should ultimately end, after a process, in disassociating from him by withdrawal of fellowship: “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17).

When to leave a church?

All of the above applies similarly to the question of church attendance. In the same way as for an individual Christian, if a so-called ‘church’ is characterised by leaders and members whose Christianity is only self-professed but not self-evident, whose lifestyles are marked by the same sin as the unbelieving world, then true Christians are called to withdraw fellowship from such Christians: they should leave that church. Don’t wait indefinitely for whatever true leader may not exist to exercise some level of church discipline: ‘do not associate with them’ (Ephesians 5:7).

If a church continues in false teaching, or if the leadership of a church continues to tolerate false teaching – teaching that is contrary to the sound doctrine of the New Testament and according to godliness, or if they teach a gospel that is different to the gospel of the Apostles of the New Testament (cf. Gal 1:6-10) – don’t follow them or continue in that church and in so doing bring the truth into disrepute: “come out from them and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17).

Those instances of course call for drastic action. But the challenge here is that much of this teaching may also apply in part to some of our dearly loved believers in the Lord also. Perhaps an individual Christian, but perhaps even a whole church, if they or their leadership are characterised by the type of immaturity and lack of obedience to the Scriptures that we see in 2 Thessalonians 3:

Whether there be a direct instruction they ignore, or simply the whole example laid down for us in the godliness and ministry of the Apostle’s model—the point is that such brothers – dearly loved family – in their disobedient, ignorance, or gross immaturity need the warning of your obedience to this command of Scripture:

“If anyone does not obey our instruction...

Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.”

(2 Thessalonians 3:14-15)

By leaving such a church your action may just shame some into repenting, with God’s mercy. If not, by his grace, you will have at least saved yourself and any of those whom God may also bring with you.

A critical analysis of Pentecostalism: Is that the Spirit?

2010-08-19T21:04:00.005+10:00

A critique of the Pentecostal and charismatic movement from an Evangelical perspective

This blog is in many ways a response to conversations I have had with many Christians over the last decade and more who are a part of the Pentecostal and charismatic movement [1], as I once was myself. Despite some differences with other Evangelicals it's evident that many Pentecostals nonetheless feel that actually we are all not too far apart in our basic theology, if at all. The idea is not uncommon: ‘when you boil it all down, we all really believe the same thing,’ right? But is it the case?

It’s a good question: What are the differences between charismatic and Pentecostal emphases and those of 'mainline' Evangelicals; and do they matter? And despite whatever distinctive emphases exist, do we actually disagree on any foundational truths?

For if our differing emphases do not prove to matter, and are founded on the same basic core beliefs, perhaps the way forward it to major on our common unity and begin to (or continue to?) work together towards the same ends.

But if our differing emphases really do prove to matter, and are founded on differing core beliefs, then other very important questions must be asked: Where does our disunity come from? What it the Biblical perspective on such disunity within the Church? Can unity be re-established and if so what would need to happen to establish a biblical unity? Can we work together at all towards the same end, and if so how?

In order to answer these questions, this blog attempts to offer a critical analysis of the distinctive emphases of the Pentecostal movement that are seen in charismatic emphases also, from an Evangelical perspective. [2] Pentecostals and charismatics alike have the view that the role of the Holy Spirit has been overlooked and under-emphasised within the Church at large for centuries, and that God has used their movements to bring his presence and work within the Church back into the light, in a way that has been ‘refreshing’, ‘awakening’, ‘renewing’, even 'reforming'.

This new and united focus on the role of the Spirit – his gifts and power - in relatively recent times has proved to be positive in many ways, however it has also generated many new understandings (or doctrines) on the role of the Spirit that are distinct from mainline Evangelicalism. What has been the effect of these new doctrines? The purpose of this blog is to firstly identify and explain these distinct emphases within charismatic circles and the Pentecostal movement, and where they came from. Secondly I attempt to explain where, how and why I think the Scriptures clearly differ with these emphases. Thirdly, I try to outline some of the effects these theological differences have had on the Christianity of Pentecostals and charismatics. Lastly what I want to do is answer some of these 'big picture' questions I've posed above.

My analysis involves obvious emphases that appear on the surface, but also more underlying beliefs evident only on a deeper level. Only after this is established can my basic questions be addressed: are the distinctive emphases of the charismatic and Pentecostal movements significant? When you boil it all down, do we all really believe the same thing?

My prayer for you as the reader is mine for myself also: that God would grant you an understanding of the Scriptures so that you will know Him better, that you would take great care to heed it's warnings and commands not to stray from sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3), and that in so doing you would save both yourself and your hearers (1 Timothy 4:16).

--

[1] The Pentecostal movement is so named because it’s most predominant distinctive concerns ‘baptism in the Spirit’, which relates to the Spirit’s coming at Pentecost (Acts 2). The ‘charismatic’ movement was so named because initially its most predominant distinctive was an emphasis on the active operation of the ‘gifts of the Spirit’ within everyday church life (‘charismatic’ literally means ‘gifts’). Though Pentecostalism has a series of churches specifically aligned with it (such as the Assemblies of God in Australia, for example), the charismatic movement is distinguished from Pentecostalism primarily because its influence operates within any Christian denomination.

[2] The majority of distinctives pointed out within the articles of this blog would certainly apply to both Pentecostals and charismatics, though it may well be that in each case Pentecostal beliefs will be better defined, accentuated more and more readily articulated than those of charismatics. Thinking in the charismatic movement is clearly diverse (and more so than within Pentecostalism), and so it is impossible to say what is the view held by everybody. I only attempt to make generalisations of characteristics that appear to be adhered to by the majority, and point out the differences or exceptions where I am aware of them.

The Quest for Power: Barnett & Jensen

2010-08-07T21:23:00.012+10:00

These articles are a series of excerpts that were first published as a book, The Quest for Power | Neo-Pentecostalism and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishes, 1973, p. 1-106). It is reproduced here with permission.

Concerned Christians in every age have tried to rediscover the secret of effective life and service which was so evident in the witness of the apostolic church.

An encouraging aspect of the contemporary world-wide interest in the charismatic evidences is the renewed emphasis on the Holy Spirit.

In this book two younger Australian ministers, who are involved in theological teaching, share insights which have arisen out of practical experience at St. Barnabas, Broadway, where they exercise a team ministry. It is their desire to relate the truth of the New Testament to the claims of the neo-pentecostal movement.

Paul Barnett [now retired Bishop of North Sydney] is chaplain at Sydney University and teaches Early Church History, New Testament and Pastoralia at Moore Theological College.

Peter Jensen [currently Archbishop of Sydney] shares the ministry at St. Barnabas and teaches Biblical Exegesis and Greek at Moore Theological College.

CONTENTS

Introduction—The Bewildered Believer

1. What Neo-pentecostals believe

2. Reading the Bible

3. The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

4. The Acts Passages

5. The Holy Spirit and Conversion in the Writings of Paul

6. Weakness and Power in the New Testament

7. Neo-pentecostals and Conservative Evangelicals

Appendix 1. Mark 16:9-20 and Speaking in Tongues

Appendix 2. Speaking in Tongues

Appendix 3. Healing

Appendix 4. 'Witness' in Acts

Appendix 5. Prophecy in the New Testament

The Acts Passages: Barnett & Jensen

2010-08-07T20:13:00.028+10:00

This article is an excerpt that was first published in The Quest for Power | Neo-Pentecostalism and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishes, 1973, p. 29-41). It is reproduced here with permission.

There is no doubt that five passages in the Acts of the Apostles (2:1-42; 8:4-24; 9:1-19; 10:1-48; 19:1-7) are the most important source of neo-pentecostal doctrine. It is on the basis of these five occasions that the neo-pentecostal lays on the conscience of his fellow believer, with the awful solemnity of a word of God, the command to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Can the book of Acts support such a position?

In order to support his thesis the neo-pentecostal must prove all the following points (not some):

1. A narrative in the Bible contains a command from God.

2. His understanding of the passages is the only reasonable one.

3. The reception of the Holy Spirit in fact resulted in 'power for witness'.

4. Certain conditions had to be fulfilled beyond becoming a Christian.

5. The Holy Spirit's coming for power was subsequent to his first coming in our conversion. There is a second and different experience of him ('subsequence').

We will examine each passage in turn, then discuss the question of whether the five 'pillars' above have been established in fact.

The Day of Pentecost

Undoubtedly this was a subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit for the disciples of Jesus. They were converted men, they had been ministered to by the Holy Spirit already. They were, in fact, in the same position as Abraham or Moses or David: born again by the Holy Spirit. But the delay experienced by these men was caused by their unique position in God's timetable. They were both believers under the old covenant, and as such had the Holy Spirit in some measure, and believers under the new covenant, when by an act of Jesus the Holy Spirit was poured out so that God's people had a new and deeper experience of him. This was connected with belief in Christ's Lordship (Acts 11:17).

An illustration may clarify the point. If one went to Bondi on the last tram before buses took over the rout, one would have to travel back by bus. But that is not to say that any other traveller to Bondi would from now on travel by tram there and bus back. On the contrary, only the bus is now available both ways, and the trip was virtually unique, because of the date.

So with the disciples. A type of subsequent experience is true for them, but their situation is unique, not the norm for Christians who now live after Pentecost. Certainly there is no breath of a command from God that we are to have two experiences.

In fact, as can be seen from Peter's speech, since the dawning of the last days, the era of the Spirit, it is expected that Christian conversion will include the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the plain meaning of Acts 2:38:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, take the ordinary steps to become a Christian and you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit. At this point the neo-pentecostal will want to say that further faith and further repentance may be required. Such attempts to read further conditions into and out of this text seem hopeless in the face of the unambiguous nature of what is said. No one doubts that the tree thousand saved that day received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the only condition mentioned is that they become Christians.

The same may be seen in Acts 5:32 where Peter says, 'And we are witnesses to these things, and so it the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those to obey him.' This is often used to prove that 'obedience' is a condition for receiving the baptism over and above the conditions of Acts 2:38. However this is not the case. The meaning of the text is: '…the Holy Spirit whom God has given [one decisive past action] to those who obey [present continuous] him.' The past coming of the Holy Spirit has produced the present obedience of the Christians, not vice versa.

Another suggestion is that the disciples were praying for the Holy Spirit at the moment when he came, an idea without any support in the text, and most unlikely, since they were seated, a posture for prayer not adopted by the Jews (Acts 2:2). As one would have expected they did pray during the period of waiting (Acts 1:14), but no one knows the content of their prayer.

Samaria

On this occasion we are certainly confronted with a case of delay. We find Philip preaching and being believed. We find him baptising the Samaritans. But we find the apostles Paul and John in Samaria praying for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit 'for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit' (Acts 8:14ff.).

At first glance this passage seems to validate the neo-pentecostal position, but we ought to note the following features of it.

First, as far as the Samaritans were concerned we read of no conditions to be fulfilled. The delay is not their fault. The apostles prayed, and laid hands, but we are given no indication that the Samaritans did any more than they had done already in order to be baptized.

Second, there is no command here for us to follow, not even that of laying on hands. The passage is not being put forward by Luke as an encouragement to neo-pentecostal type practices. Luke's understanding seems to be that something abnormal is happening. The Samaritans had believed and had been baptized but the Spirit had not yet fallen. The norm of Acts 2:38 was for some unexplained reason not fulfilled. This abnormal incident (as suggested by Luke's words 'not yet fallen') cannot be made the basis for imitation.

Third, there is no mention of 'power for witness' attendant on the reception of the Spirit.

Fourth, although it is true that no explanation is given as to why this situation is abnormal, yet at least two other explanations are possible besides the neo-pentecostal one. One is that although the Samaritans had believed and been baptized, the object of their belief was inadequate (as was the case with the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19:2), and hence the Holy Spirit had not come. The other, which is more likely in our opinion, was that Philip's evangelistic activity with the outcast Samaritans was so contrary to what many in Jerusalem believed ought to be done (as was Peter's with Cornelius) that an extraordinary sign was given, witnessed by apostles, to prove the authenticity of the conversion. It is interesting to see that the apostles evangelised in Samaria on their way home (Acts 8:25). Here is the breakthrough described by Jesus (Acts 1:8)—a notable moment in the book of Acts, and surrounded by an extraordinary event: the leading of the Holy Spirit indeed! But hardly a normative pattern for today's believers.

Different people make this passage prove different things. From this passage Catholics prove confirmation and neo-pentecostals prove 'subsequence'. But can anyone prove more than one explicit coming of the Holy Spirit? Any such attempt would be in contradiction to what Luke himself says: 'he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized…' (Acts 8:16).

Saul

Here the position is made quite clear. The neo-pentecostal claim is that Saul's conversion was completed on the road to Damascus. Then it is said that at a later date Ananias was ordered to lay hands on Saul in order that he might receive his sign, and be filled with the Holy Spirit ('subsequence'). After this was done he was baptized, as the formal mark of his conversion.

As can be seen, all depends on the fact that Saul was actually converted on the road. We may confidently assert that he was not.

The substantial reasons put forward to support the neo-pentecostal position are that Saul called Jesus 'Lord' (Acts 9:5; 22:8, 10; 26:15), that Ananias addressed him as 'brother' (Acts 9:17), and that Ananias laid hands on him (Acts 9:17). However, we note that Saul was so impressed by the light that he called Jesus 'Lord' even before he know who was there, so this cannot be the 'calling on the name of the Lord' for salvation mentioned in Romans 10:13. Nor can his request that Jesus tell him what to do be construed in the same way. (Note that Cornelius called an angel 'Lord' and obeyed him, Acts 10:1-8).

Furthermore, 'brother' was a common designation for a fellow Jew, and did not necessarily imply 'Christian brother' (see Acts 2:29, 37; 13:26 etc.).

Also, contrary to what some say, Ananias was told to lay hands on Saul in order that he might receive his sight (Acts 9:12). It is true that Ananias told Saul about receiving the Holy Spirit while laying hands on him (9:17), but this is quite a different matter from saying that the Holy Spirit came through the laying on of hands.

In fact we know that the Holy Spirit did not come then. In Acts 22:16 we find out that Ananias commanded Saul, after his sigh had returned (and so after the laying on of hands):

Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (22:13).

Thus Saul was not even saved at that stage; he had still to wash away his sins and call on the name of the Lord. It is safe to assume in the absence of contrary evidence that his experience was quite normal, as set out in Acts 2:38.

This passage teaches a valuable lesson. One might be led to believe the neo-pentecostal claim but for the second account in Acts 22 which disproves it. Here is a basic problem with narratives like that about the Samaritans as opposed to statements as in the epistles and Acts 2:38. If we knew more, we might understand better. In the meantime we need to be very careful before we find commands from God in narrative passages.

Cornelius

This account, which is included in the list on which neo-pentecostal claims are based, is actually in direct opposition to these claims.

We have already noted in chapter one how the neo-pentecostal position is that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, but then must further believe in the Lord's promise for the Spirit in order to be baptized.

This condition is not in any text. But more, in this case it could not even possibly be in the text. Cornelius and his friends hear the gospel message, which may be read in Acts 10:34-43. In it there is no mention at all about receiving the Holy Spirit by any means. But they do hear about believing in Jesus for forgiveness.

At precisely this point they believe in Jesus. Peter says in Acts 15:7-9 while speaking about this incident:

Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith (authors' italics).

It is therefore while Peter is talking, in fact before he has finished (11:15), that they believe in Jesus. And at once the Spirit falls. There is no separate step mentioned or possible. There is no fatih in the promise of the Holy Spirit released, for there has been no promise. Furtheermore all the terminology of the alleged experience is used: 'received the Holy Spirit' (10:47); 'the Holy Spirit fell' (10:44); 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' (10:45); 'baptized with the Holy Spirit' (11:16). Receiving the word (11:1) and the baptism of the Spirit are part of one and the same work in this passage.

Notice in particular the teaching (as opposed to narrative) of Peter in Acts 15:7-9 above. The Holy Spirit is given as a witness of God's acceptance of them, that is of his forgiveness. His coming testifies also to the breach of that barrier between Jew and Gentile. There is not talk of coming to give power for witness in this or any part of the account. Rather, Peter remembers:

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning… If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? (Acts 11:15-18; authors' italics).

One of the effects of this passage is to make it impossible for neo-pentecostals to reserve a special vocabulary for the 'subsequent' experience. Here is an experience of the Holy Spirit occurring precisely when men believed in Jesus (not the promise of the Spirit) which is called the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Further note

It may be urged by some that this was a subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit for power since Cornelius was a regenerate man before he heard Peter (see Acts 10:2). But even if we assume this, it would not validate the neo-pentecostal claims, for the following reasons: (a) Cornelius would then be part of that strange never-to-be-repeated group who were converted under the old covenant and then called into the new. This cannot be a pattern for Gentiles today. (b) The text itself makes it clear that Cornelius was believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation when the Holy Spirit fell (see, e.g., Acts 15:7-9). (c) The text also makes it clear that the Holy Spirit fell while Peter was talking about Christ and forgiveness, not the baptism of the Holy Spirit (10:44). Thus faith could only have been exercised in Christ, a point substantiated in Acts 11:15-17 and Acts 15:7-9.

Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7)

There are two points at which neo-pentecostal teaching appears to receive strong support in this passage.

The first is Paul's question in verse 2: 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' It is said that this question would be pointless, and even stupid, if men received the Spirit always when they believed in the Lord Jesus. If Paul know that a believer always received the Holy Spirit, why ask these men (designated 'disciples' and 'believers') whether the Spirit had come to them? Surely they would have received the Spirit automatically, if traditional Protestant teaching is correct.

Now this argument is most imposing if two conditions are reasonably proved: (a) that 'disciples' means 'Christian disciples'; (b) that Paul thought they were Christians.

But consider the actual case. We know for a fact that they were not true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, for otherwise they would not have been later re-baptized. Therefore Luke could not mean 'Christian disciples' in verse 1. Yet we also know that they had some belief in the coming of Jesus since they had received John's baptism (Mark 1:8-9). In this sense Luke calls them 'disciples'; and they claimed to be believers, as appears in Paul's question.

Thus Paul's question is easily understood. Here he is confronted with a group claiming to be believers (else his question would really have no point!), but who were not. A simple test is applied.

'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' If the answer is positive their claim is true and all they needed is more instruction, like Apollos (see Acts 18:24-28). If the answer is negative then these men are not genuine believers and need to give their submission to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul's question is neither pointless nor stupid. It is based not on his own estimate of their situation, but the claims of the twelve to be believers. He tests them, they fail the test, and he baptizes them. In fact, when the import of his question is understood it provides more evidence that the teaching of Acts 2:38 is to be taken as the norm, for their variance from that necessitated their rebaptism. Certainly it warns us about the difficulty of assessing narratives.

The second point at which neo-pentecostal teaching appears to receive strong support in this passage is in verse 5 and 6. This is because when Paul laid his hands on the Ephesians, as distinct from baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon them. Thus there reappears the neo-pentecostal claim to subsequence, since it is assumed that the Holy Spirit came when they were baptized, and for a second time a few moments later.

It is certainly impossible to say exactly what happened. It may be that the laying on of hands was part of baptism; our knowledge of how this was conducted is very slight. It may be that the laying on of hands was subsequent in the same sense (though without the same long delay) as occurred in Samaria. This possible lack of conformity to the norm of Acts 2:28 is not altogether surprising in view of the uncertain beginning that these twelve had experienced.

Our uncertainty stems from a lack of knowledge as to the precise significance of the laying on of hands. In general it does seem to express the subject's identification with the person prayed for. Sometimes it is for the recognition of gifts/commission (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6); sometimes it is for healing (Acts 9:12); twice it occurs in abnormal pastoral situations—at Samaria and Ephesus. On the available evidence there can be no doctrine of the laying on of hands, as many neo-pentecostals admit when they say that it is not a necessary pre-condition for the baptism in the Spirit. What is certain is that no one can prove two comings of the Spirit, for Luke mentions only one. The neo-pentecostal must assume a subsequence not found in the text.

However, let us agree to assume that in this passage the case for 'subsequence' is proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt (which is what the neo-pentecostal must do if he is to lay a command from God on the conscience of other Christians). There is still no command for us to do likewise in the text. There is still complete silence about the conditions for receiving this other blessing. There is no indication of power for witness being received. We are not told that God is going to work like this for others. If these details were supplied elsewhere, we may validly consider the Ephesian case of subsequence in line with the neo-pentecostal claims. But where is this information?

We began by setting out a list of the things to be established before the neo-pentecostal reading of Acts can be justified. Let us see how well the list has fared.

1. Have we discovered a narrative which is or contains a command by God for men to be baptized in the Spirit subsequent to their acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord?

Pentecost—no.

Samaria—no.

Saul—no.

Cornelius—no.

Ephesus—no.

2. Is the neo-pentecostal understanding of the passages the only reasonable one?

Pentecost—It is not reasonable at all.

Saul—It is not reasonable at all.

Cornelius—It is not reasonable at all.

Samaria—It is not the only reasonable one.

Ephesus—It is not the only reasonable one.

3. Do the texts prove that the reception of the Holy Spirit resulted in 'power for witness?'

Pentecost—yes! This was promised to the disciples by Jesus in Acts 1:8. But the promise cannot and does not apply to any Christian who has not seen the risen Christ, since he is not a 'witness' (see Appendix 4) in Luke's sense of that word.

Samaria—no.

Saul—yes; for he witnessed the risen Lord and was commissioned by him. Hence he began to preach (Acts 9:20-23; 22:25 etc.).

Cornelius—no.

Ephesus—no.

It is true, of course, that tongues speaking occurred with Cornelius, at Ephesus, and probably Samaria. But there is no suggestion that this represents power for witnessing, an activity which Luke restricts to a select group, or even power for evangelism. The same is true of the prophesying in Acts 19:6. Rather, the tongues and other signs seem to be an initial witness by God to the reality of the Spirit's coming (see Acts 15:8).

4. Do the texts show that certain conditions had to be fulfilled beyond becoming a Christian?

Pentecost—only that of remaining in Jerusalem for the risen Lord to inaugurate his new age; a position impossible to repeat.

Samaria—no conditions.

Saul—no conditions.

Cornelius—no conditions even possible.

Ephesus—no conditions.

Acts 2:28 is the only relevant teaching on this topic; the norm is that a man's conversion will be the time when God's Holy Spirit is poured out and no further step is required beyond that of becoming a Christian. This is confirmed by what is said of Cornelius (Acts 11:14-17).

5. Are these cases of 'subsequence'? (A second coming of the Holy Spirit.)

Pentecost—no.

Samaria—no.

Saul—no.

Cornelius—no.

Ephesus—no.

This is not to deny that there was a delay in some cases. At Pentecost this is not only explicable but necessary in that situation. In Samaria there is delay between repentance/baptism and the coming of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit comes only once. Luke himself hints at some oddity. The delay is explicable in terms of the breakthrough involved, and the ideas of condition and power are absent. This is not neo-pentecostal 'subsequence' which requires two comings of the Holy Spirit. In Ephesus it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that there was a delay, let along subsequence in the neo-pentecostal sense. But if there was delay it is explicable in the circumstances, not a blueprint for future generations. Luke's descriptions of delay is not the neo-pentecostal theology of subsequence.

When our examination of the Acts passages is complete, we have three incidents which comply with Acts 2:38—men were baptized with the Holy Spirit on becoming Christians; and we have two seemingly abnormal situations of delay about which we are not told enough to be able to do more than speculate. Such is not the stuff with which consciences may be bound.

Christian Discussion on the Spirit & Pentecostal, Charismatic, Evangelical & Reformed Belief, the day of Pentecost, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of the Pentecostal movement, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance, revelation and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit - TALKING PENTECOSTALISM | By Joe Towns

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John: Barnett & Jensen

2010-06-04T21:03:00.004+10:00

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The Quest for Power | Neo-Pentecostalism and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishes, 1973, p. 17-28). It is reproduced here with permission.

The work of the Holy Spirit is a major theme in this Gospel. The first reference serves as a viewing point for John’s teachings about the Holy Spirit:

And John bore witness, ‘I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God’ (John 1:32-34).
In this text we have: (i) a testimony by the Baptist: ‘I saw the Spirit descend… and it remained on him’; and (ii) a prophecy by the Baptist: ‘This is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

The Baptist’s Testimony

The evangelist John does not describe what happened to Jesus in the Jordan, except through the eyes of John the Baptist. His version coincides in essence with the account in the synoptic Gospels. John the Baptist alone supplies the testimony that Jesus is the one on whom the Spirit ‘remained’. John the Baptist’s reason for this conviction can perhaps be seen in a further testimony about Jesus:

He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all… For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit (John 3:31-34).
God hasn’t ‘rationed’ his Spirit to the Son of God from heaven. The Spirit of God, who remained on Jesus, enabled him to speak the words of God. The idea is extended by Jesus when he taught that his words are the source of the Spirit in men’s lives (6:63).

Did Jesus receive the ‘baptism of the Spirit for power’? Many neo-pentecostal writers state that Jesus was already (before Jordan) fully Son of God. At Jordan he experienced the ‘baptism with/in the Holy Spirit’ and this enabled him to commence his powerful public ministry of teaching and miracle signs. Thus, it is argued, if he needed such a baptism for power, how much more do we need such a baptism for power.1

This is a plausible suggestion. But let us ask two questions:

1. Do the Gospels tell us that the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus baptized him with power which he did not previously possess? True, Jesus’ public ministry of announcement and signs began after Jordan, but have we any evidence that Jesus was powerless beforehand? We suggest that the Jordan experience reassured Jesus that he was the Father’s beloved Son in whom he was well pleased. We can hardly say more than this without importing our own interpretation into the text.

2. In any case, does the experience of Jesus automatically represent a pattern for us to follow? Are we at liberty to suggest that an IS of his experience has any claim to be an OUGHT in our experience? The scriptures have examples where his pattern is bound on us.2 If the scripture is silent we are not at liberty to invent our own typology with its consequent exhortations.

The Baptist’s Prophecy

John prophesied that the one on whom the Spirit descended and remained would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the baptizer with the Holy Spirit. What does this mean?

John’s prophecy about Jesus undoubtedly refers to Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Ezekiel, for example, foreshadowed the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel by the breath (Spirit) of the Lord (Ezek. 37:1-14). While this passage appears to refer ultimately to the great resurrection at the Lord’s coming, it is quite valid to apply it to the ‘spiritual’ resurrection of Israel which Jesus achieved by his words and word and by the sending of his Spirit.

Joel also predicted a coming of the Spirit of the Lord. In words made famous by Peter’s remarks on the day of Pentecost he wrote:

It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28-32).
This occasion was to be no less than the great Day of the Lord which would be accompanied by cosmic portents. Only those called by the Lord, who called upon his name, would be delivered in that Day.

John was convinced that his baptism with water was to be superseded by the baptism with the Spirit through the expected Coming One. The writings of Ezekiel, Joel and others undoubtedly influenced John’s understanding. What did Jesus understand about John’s prophecy?

It may assist the reader to have before him the major references by Jesus to the work of the Holy Spirit, as recorded by John.

4:14        Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman.
7:37-39   Jesus’ bold proclamation at the feast.
14:15-20 Jesus will not abandon them. Another Paraclete is promised (cf. 14:27).
14:26-27 The Paraclete will teach the disciples about Jesus.
15:26-27 The Paraclete will witness to the disciples about Jesus.
16:7-13   The Paraclete will convict the world and lead the disciples into the truth.

We ask three questions about the Holy Spirit in these passages: Who? When? What?

Who is the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the life-giver (6:63; see also 3:6-8). The Nicene Creed calls the Spirit ‘the Lord, and giver of life’. He imparts spiritual life and light to us.

The Holy Spirit is called water. He is a spring of water and rivers of living water (4:14; 7:37-39). John baptized men with water; Jesus baptizes men with living water. Paul wrote, ‘by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body… were all made to drink of one Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:13).

The Holy Spirit is called ‘the Spirit of truth’ (14:17; 16:13). Jesus is the truth (14:6); Jesus speaks the truth (16:7). The Holy Spirit will guide the disciples into the truth about Jesus (16:13-15). Our knowledge about Jesus rests upon the activity of the Spirit of truth in the first disciples because the scriptures of the New Testament have come from their hands.

The Holy Spirit is called ‘Paraclete’. The original Greek is translated variously as ‘comforter’ (AV), ‘counsellor’ (RSV), ‘advocate’ (NEB, JB), ‘helper’ (TEV). The primary meaning appears to be ‘legal assistant, advocate’. The usage of the word in John and elsewhere suggests the idea of ‘persuader’. The Paraclete persuades the mind and will of the believer with respect to peace. He persuades or convicts the world. The meaning must be controlled by the fact that the Holy Spirit is ‘another’ Paraclete. His work resembles Jesus’ work.

The Holy Spirit is said to come as an independent person and yet to be sent by Jesus from the Father (15:26). Nevertheless the Holy Spirit is Jesus spiritually present with us, Spirit to spirit.

‘I will not abandon you. I will come to you’ (14:18, own translation). It is to our advantage that Jesus goes to the Father. Then the Spirit of Jesus will come and indwell us (see 16:7-8). The Paraclete is Jesus in us, since Pentecost.

When does the Holy Spirit come?

The Lord taught, ‘If I do not go away, the Counsellor [Paraclete] will not come to you’ (16:7).

On almost every occasion when Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit he used a future verb: ‘I shall give’ (4:14); ‘the Father will give’ (14:16); ‘I will send’ (15:26); ‘the Father will send’ (14:26); he will convince (16:8), lead (16:13), declare (16:13), teach (14:26).

Does the gospel tell us precisely when the Holy Spirit will come? Quite clearly the Holy Spirit cannot come until Jesus departs (16:7). This is more closely defined by the ‘coming hour’ when men will worship God in spirit and in truth (4:23). What is this coming hour which is referred to in John (2:4)? It is the hour when Jesus is glorified and that is the hour of Jesus death (16:23-28). On another occasion his ‘glorification’ appears to refer to the ascended Jesus (17:4, 5). Another time-note, ‘on that day’, refers to the resurrection and beyond (14:20; 16:22-23).

When was Jesus glorified? We cannot say with absolute precision. It seems that the hour of Jesus’ glorification is applied to the complex of events—his death, resurrection and ascension. These events together can be regarded as his departure to the Father: the Holy Spirit did not begin to come until then.3

John puts the matter succinctly:

Now this he said about the Holy Spirit which those who believe in him were to receive; For the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified (7:39, own translation).4
Many neo-pentecostals believe that the disciples possessed the Spirit throughout the period of Jesus’ ministry and that the Spirit came in power at Pentecost to enable them to witness to Jesus. Further, they believe that this pattern is normative for believers today.

Did the disciples have the Spirit before Jesus was glorified? The first century witnessed the end of the old epoch and the inauguration of the new. The disciples and godly Jews of that time enjoyed a relationship with the God of Israel through his Spirit. This was true not only for the godly people we meet in the Gospels but also those whom we encounter in the Acts. The Pentecost pilgrims, the eunuch from Ethiopia, Saul, Cornelius, the twelve Ephesians, even the Samaritans possessed a knowledge of the Lord through his Spirit. Yet their knowledge of the Lord was limited by his own self-revelation. The disciples were further advanced than others through the ministry of the Spirit. They proclaimed the kingdom and performed the signs which signalled its coming. At least one of their number discerned Jesus to be the Christ, yet without penetrating beyond understanding him as a quasi-political leader (Mark 8:29-33).

Did the disciples already have the Spirit? Were they regenerate before Jesus was glorified? If this question is asked with respect to knowing God through the Spirit under the old covenant the answer is undoubtedly yes. If the question relates to Christian regeneration, to submitting to Jesus as Lord through the Spirit, the answer is no!5

The disciples are a difficult case. They have flashes of insight, yet they betray spiritual blindness for much of the time.6 We conclude that their comprehension of the master was limited by the measure of the Spirit which was apportioned to men under the old covenant. John’s text appears to us definitive:

The Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified…
This position is confirmed by Peter’s remarks three years or so after the resurrection:

…the Holy Spirit fell on… us… when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:15-18).
Peter dates his belief in the Lord Jesus from the time of Pentecost. Further, it was faith in the Lord Jesus which occasioned the coming of the Spirit.

Finally, what are we to say about this famous passage?

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven’ if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’ (John 20:19-23).
Some neo-pentecostals believe this to be the first coming of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, which was to be completed by the coming of the Spirit in power at Pentecost. This position is difficult to support for the following reasons:

1. Only the eleven selected for apostleship were present. The gift of the Spirit was specifically related to ‘being sent’ and ‘remitting sins’. This passage is really a great commission not unlike Matthew 28:16-20 which concludes with ‘Lo, I [Jesus] am with you always’, a reference to the Holy Spirit as in John 20:22.

2. The coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 occurs in the second volume of Luke’s writings in response to Jesus’ promise about the Spirit at the end of Luke’s first volume (24:49). In his two volumes Luke is able to record the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit and describe historically his arrival at the time of Pentecost. Matthew and John, each writing in only one volume, incorporate the theological truth of Pentecost into their accounts of the great commission. We suggest that John 20:19-23 is, in effect, Jesus’ sign of Pentecost. But since John has no second volume in his account the sign actually serves also to describe the reality foreshadowed by the sign.7

3. The best understanding of the situation is that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost marked the point at which followers of Jesus became regenerated believers in the Jesus whom God had made Lord and Christ. This was the first occasion when Jesus baptized men with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). It was, further, in the case of the twelve, the beginning of the ministry for which they were especially empowered.

What will the Holy Spirit do?

If we do not know the promises of scripture it is scarcely possible to claim them as our own, by faith in them. Do we know the promises Jesus made with respect to the work of the Holy Spirit?

First, Jesus promised to satisfy spiritual thirst in our inner lives. He promises to any man who thirsts an inner spring whose supply of water is inexhaustible. Gone are the days of ‘bucket brigade’. He connects us up to the ‘main water supply’ which never fails.

Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst’ the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life (John 4:14).
Second, Jesus promises to bless others through our lives. Jesus does not intend us to enjoy the inner satisfaction of the Spirit selfishly. The thirsty person who comes to Jesus and drinks will have rivers of living water flowing out of him. The Spirit will flow out from Jesus into the life of the believer from whom living water will also flow out. Three of the prophets wrote of waters flowing out from the temple on Mount Zion as part of the blessings of the new age. The new temple, not made with hands, is Jesus’ body glorified by death and resurrection. From that new temple the living waters of the Holy Spirit flow out to men who come to him and drink. More, the coming of the Spirit makes our bodies temples from which rivers of living water flow out in blessing others.

On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, ‘If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water”.’ Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:37-39).
Third, although the age before Jesus returns will be extremely trying, Jesus promises not to leave us desolate. The Father will give us another Paraclete who will dwell within us. Our hearts are uplifted beyond words when we discover that the other Paraclete who comes to us is none other than the Lord himself. And he promises peace:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you; not as the world gives… Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid (14:27).
*           *          *            *

There is another group of promises about the Holy Spirit which occurs within chapters 14-16. These promises were made to the disciples who were present with Jesus, who were to become the great apostles in the early church. The Holy Spirit was to exercise a special ministry to them.

First the Holy Spirit would teach them and remind them what Jesus taught.

But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26).
Second, the Holy Spirit would witness to them about Jesus. These, who had been with Jesus from the beginning, would in turn witness about him.

And you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning (John 15:27).
Third, the Holy Spirit would convict those who heard the apostolic testimony.

And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged (John 16:8-11).
Fourth, the Holy Spirit would revealed new things to them and guide them into the truth about Jesus. He would declare to them the things to come.

I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you (John 16:12-15).
The great prayer of Jesus for these disciples, that they would be kept in the truth of the words of Jesus and be enabled to transmit that message, was to be fulfilled by the special work of the Holy Spirit within them. It was the apostles who were empowered to witness to the resurrection. It was the apostles who were empowered to perform the signs and wonders following the gospel. It was the apostles who were inspired to write the documents we have come to know as the New Testament.8

It is a matter of great rejoicing that Jesus imparted to certain men the gift of apostleship through the Holy Spirit. The New Testament, upon which we depend for our knowledge of the Lord, was made possible by this work of the Holy Spirit.

We may ask, is there nothing at all in these special promises for us who are not apostles? We may be confident that the same Spirit will minister to us as we seek to understand and communicate these truths which the Spirit initially enabled the apostles to write. But we may not identify ourselves with the apostles in their unique ministry.

---

1.E.g. J. Baker, Baptized in One Spirit (Fountain Trust, London, 1967), p. 11.

2.Mark 8:27 ff., where Jesus requires his disciples to take up a cross.

3.John 19:30 may contain a reference to the coming of the Spirit. It was the occasion of Jesus’ glorification: he cried ‘it is finished’. Jesus handed on the Spirit (of breath?). The verb ‘handed on’ is cognate with the verb used by Jesus with respect to ‘giving’ the Spirit (4:14). Against this we must observe that the word translated ‘Spirit’ can equally be translated ‘breath’. It is possible that we have here an example of Johannine ‘double intention’.

4.The RSV supplies the verb ‘given’ which is not found in the Greek text.

5.Even John the Baptist despite his greatness was not a member of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 11:11). This is not to say he was not saved. Rather, it indicates that in God’s timetable the kingdom was not yet inaugurated, merely announced, though the signs of its coming were manifest in Jesus who was the king.

6.In Mark they:

don't understand the parable of the soils (4:10-13);
have no faith during the storm (4:40);
fail to comprehend about the loaves (6:52);
display blindness and are rebuked by Jesus (8:14-21);
fail to comprehend the resurrection (9:10) or the death (9:32)
argue about the leadership (9:34; 10:35 ff.);
exclude other disciples (9:38) and children 10:13)

7.John’s approach is thoroughly theological. Whilst he takes history very seriously, there are occasions when historical narratives are infused with an overriding theological concern. For example, John locates the cleansing of the temple in chapter 2. This ought to warn us that his text demands a theological approach to exegesis rather than a too simplistic historical approach. This being so, we feel justified in explaining Jesus’ sign of Pentecost as being John’s account of Pentecost. If this is not the case we have the problem that many promises about the Holy Spirit in John remain unfulfilled, ‘up in the air’. Given the theological comprehensiveness of John this seems unlikely.

8.It is true that there was some overflowing of these activities (witness to the resurrection, and inspired writings) to others beyond the apostolic group. However, it was to the apostles alone that Jesus promised the gifts which made them the unique guarantors of the truth. The writings of others find their way into the New Testament on the grounds of their links with the significant figures of the apostolic age and their conformity to apostolic doctrine.

Christian discussion on the Spirit & Evangelical, Pentecostal, Reformed & Charismatic Belief, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of Pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit | http://TalkingPentecostalism.blogspot.com by Joe Towns

What neo-pentecostals believe: Barnett & Jensen

2010-05-30T21:34:00.005+10:00

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 3-6). It is reproduced here with permission.

‘Neo’ is a prefix which means ‘new’. It serves to distinguish the neo-pentecostals from the denominations of Pentecostalism and some of the emphases of their teaching, especially because neo-pentecostals may be found within any Christian denomination.

The following description is a general account of neo-pentecostal belief, with which some neo-pentecostals will differ at particular points.

The name ‘pentecostalism’ is used because its distinctive teaching is to do with the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost (Acts 2). In doctrinal teaching it stands clearly within the historic Protestant Biblical tradition; that is, its exponents believe in the authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the true incarnation, the trinity, etc.

The neo-pentecostal will often complain about the deadness of the churches. He observes that there is little evidence of powerful preaching, of miraculous gifts and of growth in Christian commitment. This leads him to suggest that what is lacking is the power of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking from the Bible, he will complain that the traditional Protestant theology has misunderstood or ignored an experience which he entitles ‘the baptism with the Holy Spirit’. Traditional theology has held that when a man becomes a Christian he is then baptized with the Holy Spirit. Neo-pentecostals agree that the Holy Spirit makes a man a Christian and is given at that time for sanctification and growth in grace. But they say that the believer must also seek the fullness of the Spirit if he is to be a powerful Christian. This baptism is a gift of the Lord Christ to every Christian subsequent to and separate from his conversion. It is a gift of power for Christ’s service.

Thus a person who has not been ‘baptized in the Spirit’ will be saved, and he may well be Christ-like, but he will not be supernaturally gifted for service, that is, service within the church and also toward the unbeliever. Nor is it possible to receive the baptism unawares. It is a conscious experience, consciously sought, and ought to be accompanied by the gift of speaking in tongues, as a sign, although this is not invariably the case.

This is not to say, however, that the baptism ought to be long separated from a man’s conversion. Ideally they ought to occur in the same context of events. Today’s Christians are not instructed about this, however, and therefore the baptism occurs quite separately, generally speaking.

It is suggested that the Christians to whom the epistles were written were instructed about this experience, and this accounts for the lack of specific commands concerning it. However, various texts are mentioned where reference is allegedly made to the idea of a separate baptism in the Spirit—e.g. Galatians 3:2, 5, 14; 4:6; Ephesians 1:13 (AV); and 1 Corinthians 12:13.

The example is cited of the Lord Jesus receiving baptism in the Spirit in Jordan although he was obviously Spirit-filled before then. It is said that this Spirit-baptism equipped Jesus for his ministry.

However the main evidence for two experiences of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and then empowering is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles in five places:

(a) the day of Pentecost—Acts 2:1-42;
(b) the Samaritans—Acts 8:4-24;
(c) Saul—Acts 9:1-19;
(d) Cornelius—Acts 10:1-48;
(e) Ephesians—Acts 19:1-7.

To sum up, in the words of one neo-pentecostal writer: ‘The neo-pentecostal draws on the examples given in the Acts of the Apostles of people being baptized in the Holy Spirit as his guide to what the church may expect of such a baptism today. For these examples (listed above) he deduces certain experiential facts concerning the baptism in the Holy Spirit in the early church.

These facts are:

‘(1) Conversion and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are different experiences.
‘(2) They are not concurrent, though they may—and perhaps should—occur almost together.
‘(3) Initiative must be taken and faith released for a person to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is not the initiative taken nor the faith released for conversion.
‘(4) A person will know that he has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and this is not the same as knowing that he has been converted.
‘(5) The baptism in the Holy Spirit is essentially an experience of the Holy Spirit related to power for witnessing to Jesus Christ.
‘(6) The baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience for all Christians and thus all should be encouraged to enter into it.’1

Traditional Protestant Theology

(1) birth –> Conversion (baptism in the Holy Spirit –> death

Neo-pentecostalism

(2) birth –> (A) Conversion (coming of the Holy Spirit) –> (B) baptism in the Holy Spirit for power, with signs –> death

N.B.—In (2) the time-lag between A and B may be seconds or years, depending on the faith and understanding of the person

---

1. Reproduced by permission from a paper presented by R. B. Hobart to the Diocese of Sydney Commission of Enquiry into the Charismatic Movement.

Reading the Bible: Barnett & Jensen

2010-05-29T22:29:00.005+10:00

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power |
neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 7-16). It is reproduced here with permission.

Knowledge basic to the Christian life

Paul asked:

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed?
And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?
And how are they to hear without a preacher?
He concludes:

So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom. 10:14 and 17).
We learn here that our salvation comes by hearing the message of the gospel and believing; or, to put it another way, through the knowledge of God transmitted to us by human language. Nor is it only the beginning of the Christian life which depends on the knowledge of God.

When Paul prays for the Christians at Ephesus (1:16f.; 3:14-19), at Philippi (1:9), and at Colossae (1:9,10), he prays for knowledge. Certainly this means than intellectual understanding. It is indeed a word that speaks of our relationship with god, but it must include the assimilation of information, for our Christian life is not based on ignorance. That is why Paul exhorts Timothy:

Command and teach these things. Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching… Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers (1 Tim. 4:11-13, 16).

Notice the importance of scripture. Here we find the light we need to establish and maintain our relationship with God. That is why Paul stresses:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you have learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-17; authors’ italics).

Thus knowledge of God is of primary importance for every Christian. This explains why the New Testament speaks of a special class of person called a teacher, whose work is so vital to the body that he is to be paid for it (Gal. 6:6). It is not that the teacher is a more important person in God’s sight, but that his function is of great value (see Eph. 4:11-16), and it is necessary if the other members of the body are to work together properly.

Since the knowledge of God is basic to our salvation and growth as Christians, we ought to notice the means by which God has chosen to impart such knowledge to his children. He is free to do as he pleases, but, as has already been indicated, his usual method is through the scriptures. In fact since we know that the Bible is God’s word to us, we are bound to bring all other claims to reveal God’s mind to the test of whether they conform to it (see Deut. 13:1-4).

In short, Christians need to give special attention to the Bible. When they do, they discover at once that God has chosen to reveal his mind to us in human speech, using human grammar, literary forms and style. This means we are forced to respond to God’s word by reading it as a book.

That may seem obvious. But a surprising number of people seem to think of the Bible as a charm. Some people put a copy under their pillow at night. Others try to discover God’s mind by opening the book at random and reading what they find. Others have no hesitation in squeezing from plain words incredible meanings. Others use words torn from the very middle of sentences. Others read weird fantasies into the text. Thus the book becomes plasticine, to be set in whatever mould suits the person concerned, and the word of God is lost.

This last point can hardly be overstressed. It is no good thinking that if what we say has some vague relation to a part of the Bible, or has a pious air to it, then it is the word of God. It is a very serious matter to read something into the Bible that it is not saying, for then our relationship with God, based as it is on knowledge, is severely hindered. Relationships need truth.

There is a need therefore for us to have some rules in mind as we begin to read the Bible, and this chapter will set out some such rules. But our treatment can hardly be exhaustive, only preliminary, and the reader is asked to consult a book such as A. M. Stibbs Understanding God’s word (IVF).

Some suggestions for the Bible reader

To begin with, it would be good to ponder the words of one of the first translators of the Bible into English, Miles Coverdale:

It shall greatly help ye to understand Scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth (authors’ italics).

This is very good advice for the reading of any book, but especially so in relation to the Bible, where the meaning is so important. People often approach it with strange ideas. Chapter and verse divisions, quite foreign to the original writing, have been introduced. These divisions are very useful as study aids, ut give the Bible a stilted, unique appearance which does not in fact belong to it.

(i) Clarify the words and phrases used. Most of us use a translated Bible. This means that words or phrases need to be studied for their meaning both in English and Greek. It will not do to assume that the English word is always exactly equivalent to the Greek or Hebrew word that it translates. And example of this is the key word ‘kingdom’. In English this almost always means a place, a geographical location. Although the word can have this meaning in some New Testament passages, yet often it would be better translated ‘rule’ or ‘reign’, a rather different concept. Another example of a word whose meaning is wider in the original than it is in modern English is ‘righteousness’. So it is obvious how important study is, even for a well-known text like Matthew 6:33!

(ii) Note the ‘terrain’. That is to say, the Bible has within it many types of literature: prose, poetry, fable, proverb, allegory, parable, etc. One ought not to handle the prose of a Pauline epistle in the same way as the poetry of a Psalm.

In Job we find statements about God and the world which are not meant to be true. The book is a dramatic poem, the speakers disagree and fall into error, and the whole needs to be read before we can get the message. This is quite different from the use to which a Pauline letter may be put.

(iii) Note the immediate context. Words plucked from mid-sentence, mid-paragraph, even sometimes mid-book, are in danger of being twisted. Read and understand the whole before separating the parts.

There is the story of the careless preacher whose bishop ironically suggested that he preach a sermon on ‘hang all the law and prophets’ (AV), a text wrenched from Matthew 22:40; or another of the missionary who saw the words ‘flee to Egypt’ (Matt. 2:13) as a command for him to do likewise. These are obvious examples of a practice which is perhaps the most frequent of all lapses in regard to the Bible.

Often a Biblical statement is taken from the context of the conversation being reported. Thus, for example, while no one thinks for a moment that we must all buy linen waistcloths because the Lord told Jeremiah to do so (Jer. 13:1), yet we have been told to ‘go, sell what you have, and give to the poor…’ (Mark 10:21) because Jesus told a rich young man to do this. In this regard a study of Coverdale’s advice is essential: we must ask ‘who is speaking?’ and ‘to whom?’

(iv) Know the background. Although the main message of the Bible is available to anyone who will read it by itself, yet the meaning of various parts will be enhanced greatly if the historical and geographical background to the passage is known.

To pick an example, the meaning of Christ’s injunction about swearing oaths is clear enough (Matt. 5:33-37), but it is helpful to know something of the lengths to which the contemporary legalists went in avoiding the implications of the Old Testament teaching.

Psalm 137 benefits from geographical and historical knowledge in the reader. A glance at Babylon and Jerusalem on the map and an acquaintance with the history of Babylonish/Jewish relationships will go far to explain the tone of this song.

For some passages the background information is not only desirable: it is necessary. This is especially true of the prophets.

(v) Note the Biblical context. Because the Bible says so much about God, and our understanding is so limited, there are unresolved tensions in its pages, for example that between the sovereignty of God and man’s responsibility. It can never be right to resolve such tension by ignoring a Biblical doctrine.

(vi) The consensus of Christian opinion. Amongst those who believer in the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, there is agreement on a large range of important issues, such as the trinity, the atonement, and the deity of Christ. Sometimes this agreement is expressed in creeds or in confessi0ns. It is wisdom to treat these summaries of Bible teaching as fallible, but with great respect, and to ask ourselves whether we are certain that we have the Bible’s meaning clear when we find that we have stepped beyond the bounds of agreement reached by many different Christians over a long period of time.

It may indeed be that a new Luther or a new Calvin needs to emerge. But the onus is surely on the new interpretation to prove that it is accurate as over against the old, and we are wise to adopt a flexible conservatism.

Some pitfalls to avoid

(i) Flights of fancy. The man who interprets the Bible must always be asking himself ‘What did the human author mean?’ When he ascertains this he will be close to the meaning which God wants him to have.

Trouble is caused by those who wish to see the plan of salvation (or something else) everywhere in the Bible. Thus Naaman’s seven dips in Jordan have been used to give the seven points of conversion (contrition, confession, conversion, commitment … etc.) or the seven points of sanctification, or any seven points the speaker has in mind. Whatever we end with, it is not God’s word!

Similarly the parable of the good Samaritan has been abused, so that every detail of the story stands for something—the man for Adam, the priest for the law, the Samaritan for Christ, and the inn for the church. Anyone can read any meaning he wishes into the Bible if this is permitted.

Fantasies have been read into the high priest’s garments, Elijah’s robe, and Christ’s seamless robe. Someone recently said that he thought that the institutional churches were represented in the Bible by Saul, for whom God withdrew his Spirit!

There is no end to such examples: but the sad result is the same. The word of God is stolen from the Lord’s sheep and they are not fed. A man’s relationship with God requires true knowledge.

(ii) Fixation. This describes the habit of being so engrossed in one doctrine (e.g. predestination) as to read it everywhere in the Bible.

(iii) Wrong presupposition. We must come to the Bible very carefully and humbly, knowing that our culture and theology have conditioned us to read it in a certain way.

Thus, a person who has a firm conviction that God’s love is irreconcilable with punishment may well explain away those passages in the Bible which speak of his wrath. Some have even gone so far as to abandon the whole of the Old Testament on these grounds; others omit parts of the Psalms iin church; others retain the unpleasant sections by unconsciously re-interpreting the Biblical language to suit the twentieth century.

We are all subject to this. We hear a Biblical word or phrase, read our own meaning into it, and then proceed on the assumption that the Bible is speaking like that.

(iv) The misuse of narrative. This is a common evangelical failing, and especially in relation to the book of Acts. We hear that the early church did something and we assume that it is a command from God for us to do it—that is, we turn a description (an ‘is’) into a prescription (an ‘ought’). In this way open-air preaching is justified; or small cell-group meetings; or appeals for commitment at meetings and so on.

Christ has granted freedom in these and many areas; some teachers seek to remove our liberty by turning narrative into commands. No one pretends that we must always ask anyone we meet who is reading the Bible, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ (Acts 8:30) as Philip did; or that we must pool our resources as the primitive Christians did (Acts 2:45);1 or that we must sing hymns at midnight if we are in gaol as Paul and Silas did (Acts 16:25). That men did these things is wonderful and interesting; that we must do them is nonsense.

A further example will illuminate the point. In 1 Corinthians 15:29 the practice of receiving baptism on behalf of the dead is referred to. This is the only mention of it in the New Testament, and Paul does not condemn it. If anything, he is favourable about it.

The Mormons actually practise the baptism for the dead, basing their activities on this text. Yet no one else does, for it is plain to most people that the description of a happening in apostolic days is not in itself a command for us to do the same. An ‘is’ is not an ‘ought’.

This example illustrates, too, the main problem with unexplained narratives—they cannot give the whole story. The author selects some details to tell us, but does not give us all; thus when we come with our questions, questions which did not trouble him, we find the text silent or ambiguous. One instance of this is in Paul’s conversion which is noted on page 33. The careless reader, too eager to see what is already in his mind, will be led astray.

Naturally, narratives have some use. They can, for example, confirm that a certain practice is not contrary to the gospel. So we may be confident that open-air preaching is not contrary to God’s word, since both Jesus and the disciples did this; but we are not to assume that it is commanded in God’s word. We may gather imperatives or doctrines from narratives where the author himself has given the details a theological significance known to us. This significance may be learned from his writings as a whole, or from the immediate context, or both. But taking a narrative on its own clear terms is rather different from the unfettered inventiveness so typical in much Biblical interpretation.

To take an example, Peter’s dealing with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) is not a model for us to follow. But it appears to be in Luke’s terms an illustration of the authority of the apostles (Acts 5:11, 12). Speeches given as part of a narrative are of the same character. We may indeed gather commands, promises, and doctrine from the words of an apostolic speech addressed to the public whether general or Christian.

Conclusion

All this may seem overwhelming to the ordinary person, and he may feel that he is not equipped to read the Bible himself. This is not the case. The rules above are common sense, the sort of thing a person does without thinking when faced with a book to read.

Because of our propensity to view the Bible as magic (as distinct from inspired) we sometimes approach it in the wrong way. Prayer for light, common sense and humility are sufficient for the ordinary Bible reader, and he should be encouraged to read on and find God’s plain way. Nor has God left us on our own. Besides the aid of the Holy Spirit, Christ has in every generation given some men the ability to teach. These men have a gift for understanding and explaining the Bible. Thus we ought to turn to such people for help as we read—whether it be to one’s local teacher or pastor, or to the books and commentaries written by teachers for our instruction.

---

1. Since writing this the author has become aware that the ‘Children of God’ do in fact bind their members to communal living.

The Bewildered Believer: Barnett & Jensen

2010-05-26T21:14:00.003+10:00

This book is written for people who are bewildered and confused by the issue of neo-pentecostalism.

As a committed Christian you desire to be an effective disciple. You also desire the blessings of God’s spirit in your life.

Yet neo-pentecostals say one thing about this and orthodox Protestants say something else. They speak with conflicting voices.

Both groups appear to use the Bible and submit to its authority. Yet the old churches seem pretty dead whereas the neo-pentecostal meetings are bright and friendly. Things seem to be happening there, whereas nothing much seems to be happening in the old churches.

The baptism in the Holy spirit and speaking in tongues are made to sound attractive. Yet leading Christians from the historic denominations are known to be critical of what neo-pentecostals teach and do. It is all very bewildering to the ordinary believer who wants to be the best Christian he can.

This book sets out the neo-pentecostal position and then investigates some of the parts of scripture which bear on the issue. We feel that one of the major issues at stake is the way people use the Bible. For this reason we have discussed methods of using the Bible as one of our early chapters.

We, the authors, do not hold the neo-pentecostal point of view though we are grateful for its insight and emphasis in certain important areas.

We make a plea at this point. Some of the material in this book may be a little hard to understand. We are sorry about this, but it usually reflects difficult Bible passages which are hard to translate into simple language. Our plea is that the reader doesn’t give up on reading when he comes to a hard section. Sometimes it is a good idea to skip over a hard section for the moment and come back to it later.

There is another problem. Since we have written from convictions which repudiate the teachings of an exciting new group, we must often seem carping and over-critical.

Yet it must be remembered that the neo-pentecostal himself is a missionary with a view of Biblical truth which he is advocating as a pattern for all believers. He is quite deliberately posing a challenge to his fellow Christians. If his theology is wrong, his pattern becomes a burden on men’s consciences, and falsifies the gospel of God.

In that situation it is no great display of love to remain silent.

Music in church: Michael Jensen

2010-03-21T17:38:00.009+11:00

© Australian Christian Pty Ltd 2010
This article was first published in eternity.biz and Eternity Newspaper, 26th February 2010. It is reproduced here with permission. For more information about Eternity, visit eternity.biz.

I know there’s no subject more likely to get Christians weeping and gnashing their teeth, but I’d like to put forward some observations about music in church.

Musical diversity & culture

The days when you’d hear people talking about rock’n’roll as ‘the devil’s music’ are happily long in the past (…um, like the term ‘rock’n’roll!). Modern-day churches have, on the whole, moved beyond the sacred/secular divide when it comes to styles of music. They have decided that there is no genre of music that is necessarily more holy than any other; and that the matter of style in music is merely a matter of personal taste. This is a theological decision (i.e., no music is inherently more sinful); but it is also an aesthetic judgement (i.e., there is no objectively beautiful or universally ugly music).

Nowadays, most evangelical churches imagine themselves choosing a style of music on the basis of its cultural relevance. The right style of music, then, is the style that clicks best with the congregation of the day, roughly speaking. To cite an example drawn from the US: when megachurch pastor Rick Warren arrived in the Saddleback area, he researched the kind of music that people in his target group were listening to, and that became the music-style of his new church. And ministries targeting special groups adopt the music of that particular tribe.

There are good theological instincts at work here. The Bible does not mandate a style of music, though like an opera it is full of people bursting out into song at the drop of a hat (Miriam, Hannah, Deborah, David, Isaiah, Zechariah, Mary… the list goes on). What is more, the gospel does not come to us bound hard to a particular cultural expression - in fact, the missionary genius of Christianity is that it transcends cultural expressions. Church singing in Africa and church singing in Indonesia are going to be different, and yet still absolutely Christian – and thank goodness for that.

Musical adaptation & transformation

Furthermore, a robustly Biblical doctrine of creation and a cursory glance at church history both show us that the church adapts forms of music that it finds to its uses rather than needing to invent them from scratch. So: today’s beer hall song is tomorrow’s Lutheran hymn; that familiar sea-shanty will be turned to use in the Methodist chapel; the work songs of the slaves morph into gospel music.

But does this mean that church musicians are aesthetic relativists? I don’t think it can mean this. Don’t get me wrong: I am not saying that (for example) the organ is a more sacred instrument than the electric guitar. That is just silliness in spades.

No: what I mean is this: I would expect that as music is pressed into the service of congregational singing and worship of God, it will be transformed as music. And this means that the church will continually be generating fresh styles (or freshening up old styles) as it puts the music it hears to holy purposes.

Which means that, while church musicians ought to be open to repeating what they hear around them, they ought also to be encouraged to innovate and develop their musical style as a reflection of what they are doing.

Music of the people & for the people

How might this work out in practice? A preacher I greatly admire once said to me, when I put the relativist/pragmatic argument forward: “no, there definitely is a style for church music. It’s called ‘folk music’.”

Originally I thought this was hogwash. But nowadays I think there is something in this – so long as we take a broad definition of ‘folk’. He didn’t mean Peter, Paul & Mary or Bob Dylan before he went electric! He meant ‘folk’ in the sense that means ‘of and for the people’ - as opposed to elitist and alienating.

That is, a style of music that achieves a marriage between the words of praise and the use in congregational singing can never be stylistically arbitrary, though it may vary enormously over time and place. And ‘folk’ isn’t a bad designation for it if it is in the service of the people of God. It is in that sense ‘music of and for the people’. This is the criterion we get for the use of any gift in church from 1 Corinthians 12-14 – and music shouldn’t be exempt from this. It is truly the music of love if it up-builds the church.

It is no accident that Christians have been responsible for developing some highly original and sophisticated forms of music from asking ‘what musical style best serves and edifies the people of God?’ and ‘what musical style best helps us let the word of Christ dwell in us richly’ (see Col 3:16)? These styles have been very different from one another – think gospel music and choral music – but have had a common purpose. Putting music to this purpose is truly transformative.

So here’s my tentative thesis: ‘folk’ music is the best way to describe the form of music that ought to be found in churches. This is a particular expression of a theology of church of course. It is missional, in that adapts to local conditions; it is non-elitist, in that it is accessible by the community without asking extraordinary skill or learning (thus reflecting the priesthood of all believers); and it is open to being sanctified for its use by the Christian community.

The Christian pop music genre

And so (and here’s the controversial bit), some forms of music are going to be excluded because they are not aesthetically shaped to the purpose of singing together to God. While no particular form of music is commanded or sanctified in scripture, as we try to adapt different forms of music to use in Christian fellowship as expressions of common life we will soon realise that some styles are just so ill-suited they will never work for this purpose without a great deal of adaptation.

In each age, certain musical styles offer themselves in different ways for adaption for use in church meetings. The traditional tunes that we find used in ‘Be Thou My Vision’ or ‘A Mighty Fortress is Our God’ are already deeply embedded in the history and culture of the community from which they emerged as an expression of commonality - the pride and security of togetherness is the note they immediately sound.

These features really work for church music because of the overlap - Christians want to express precisely those feelings and truths about their God. The return of Celtic-sounding melodies in the music of Stuart Townend and Keith Getty works because we associate that style of music with rousing fellow-feeling. If anything, the danger is that the Celtic style is a little militaristic - they all sound like national anthems in the end!

Since the 1970s, much new church music has followed the form of the popular song, with its verse and chorus pattern (and sometimes a middle section), its use of repetition, and simple and rather short melodic lines. In a sense, popular songs are the ‘folk’ music of the era, given the mass appeal of the form – so it has made good sense to use them. What are the implications of using this genre for church music?

Music for our maturity?

Broadly speaking, the popular songs of the mass communications age are all about romantic love and desire. The (usually) bright and hooky melodies are meant to match the content of the words. When we hear a popular song, we immediately associate it with this erotic theme, even before we hear the words.

The singer of a popular song is most often an individual singing about his or her longing or loss. That’s the genre: when the Beatles play around with this genre and began singing about walruses and paperback writers and what have you, we recognise that this stretching of the genre is taking place, and ride with it. The music of U2 (beloved of many Christians) is an interesting case of course: they express desire and love, but most often it isn’t for another human being. In fact, it is often suggestive of a desire for the transcendent.

And this is quite apt. Psalms such as Psalm 63 give Scriptural voice to this theme of longing and desire for God. Christians have recognised that the popular song is a ready-made vehicle for the expression of longing and desire of an individual for God, because we instantly think of this when we hear it.

However, this is where the pitfalls lie, too. Since way back in the 1930s, the popular song has revealed itself to be capable of quite complex and even profound expressions of grown-up and mature emotions. But it has also been the musical vehicle for short-cuts to emotional fruition.

So: while the popular song expresses much of what we might want to say to God, it doesn’t capture all of the gestures and attitudes that are available to us. If Christian musicians don’t work hard to transform the popular song for a higher purpose, it may not help us mature in our Christian affections.

Dr Michael Jensen teaches doctrine at Moore College. The original version of this article was presented at EMU Music’s TWIST conference in 2009.

talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

John Wimber changes his mind: Phillip Jensen

2010-03-19T21:04:00.008+11:00

© Matthias Media 1990
This article was first published in The Briefing, no. 45/46, 24 April 1990, pp. 3-6. It is reproduced here with permission. For more information about The Briefing, visit www.thebriefing.com.au.

Just prior to the Spiritual Warfare Conference in March, John Wimber met with three of Sydney's leading evangelicals. The discussions, which lasted just under three hours, were requested by some Sydney people who had reservations about the Signs and Wonders ministry. Present at the meeting with John Wimber were Jack Deere and Paul Cain from the Vineyard Ministries, Dan Armstrong from Kairos, and John Woodhouse, David Cook and Phillip Jensen from Sydney. Although the meeting was conducted privately at John Wimber's hotel it was agreed from the outset that what was said privately would be published openly later. Careful notes were made of the discussion.

We began the meeting by asking John Wimber if his public preaching and private views were the same. We explained that it was rumoured that there were differences.

Hurt by this accusation, John very generously and openly declared his views with the kind of humility, compassion and laid-back friendliness for which he is well known. Six areas of discussion ensued:

• the use of money
• the healing miracles
• power evangelism
• the sufficiency of the Scriptures
• the concern for truth
• the divisiveness of the Signs and Wonders ministry.

1. The use of money

We were assured by John that profits from the Australian conferences would not go to him personally, nor to his American organization, but were invested in the continued growth of the Vineyard International Ministry. We were promised that a full account of the books would be sent to us by Kairos Ministries, the local group responsible for financial arrangements.

2. The healing ministry

John seems persuaded that great miracles of healing are taking place by God's work in the world today. He rejects the idea that he is a healer; it is God who heals. He quickly and freely gives countless anecdotes of healing, and promises that documentation of the Vineyard's Ministry of healing will be forthcoming.

He admitted that not all diseases are equally responsive to healing. Blindness, for example, has a success rate of 3-8%, depending upon the cause of the blindness—blindness from disease having more healings than blindness from accidents or birth.

Three issues need to be dealt within assessing these claimed healings:

a. the facts—whether genuine miraculous intervention by God is actually taking place
b. the theological significance of whatever miracles take place
c. how we handle the issue pastorally.
a. The first issue was tackled by raising the possible healing of children with Down syndrome. This genetic disease cannot be caused or healed by psychosomatic ‘mind-over-body’ factors. It is an ideal test case disease, being relatively easy to diagnose genetically both before and after the ‘healing’.

John Wimber claimed to have prayed over more than 200 children with Down syndrome. To his genuine disappointment, only one of the 200 have shown any sign of healing. This one child still has many of the symptoms of his problem (i.e. visual features), but has been able to reach “the lower end of the normal range” in educational attainments. John was careful to emphasize that it was the lower end, but within the normal range.

The healing rate, then, for Down syndrome is 0.5%, and the healing that did take place was only partial (unlike Jesus' healings). Why this disease is so resistant, John has no idea. On further consultation with doctors working in this area, we have been assured that for a Down syndrome child to be in the lower end of the normal range of academic achievement is not unusual or remarkable, let alone miraculous. From a medical viewpoint, John Wimber's 0.5% success rate with Down syndrome is less than is achieved through the efforts of health professionals.

The implication this has for other ‘healings’ of backaches and headaches seemed to escape John Wimber completely. We know that many illnesses are psychological or psychosomatic. We know of the placebo effect where a patient takes what he believes is a cure for his problem (but which is actually a sugar pill), and improves. The evidence so far suggests that John Wimber heals in the ‘sugar pill area’. The area where the New Testament speaks of healing and where he talks of healing seem to be wholly resistant to his ministry. That is, to put it bluntly, it is to be seriously doubted that any miraculous healings are taking place at all. (The failure so far to provide Christian doctors with cases to verify from the Sydney conference only contributes to the growing doubt over any genuine miracles. See Philip Selden's account on page 19.)

b. The second issue is the theological significance of healing. Given the very low percentage of healings, we asked John Wimber if he considered that his healings were like Jesus' or the Apostles'. He quickly and rightly saw that they were quite radically different. We asked about the claims of his books and his previous teaching that the powerlessness of evangelicals lay in their failure to pray for and claim the Signs and Wonders of the Kingdom, seen in Jesus and the Apostles. He replied that thanks to the advice of Jack Deere, he had come to understand that the current miracles fit into the New Testament not at the point of Jesus and the Apostles and the coming of the Kingdom, but in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and the gifts of healing.

This change of mind seriously compromises the stance of the previous Signs and Wonders conferences, Vineyard Ministries and John Wimber's books. He was asked if he would be explaining this change of mind to the Sydney conference, but he declined. (As it turned out, both views were expressed during the course of the week.)

c. The third issue of healing is the pastoral consequences of the claims for miracles. John Wimber is very open about not being healed himself. He also said that he does not promise healing for everyone or blame lack of faith as the sole reason for lack of healing.

However, when asked if he would be open with enquirers and tell them of the small probability of healing, he declined. He wants to encourage people to put their faith in God and call upon him for healing. He wants people to know that God can heal and wants to heal, and therefore to ask expectantly. He paralleled this to salvation/forgiveness. He said that we do not say to people that they only have a chance of being saved. We say that God can save and wants to save, and so we encourage people to put their faith in God and call for forgiveness. Such a confusion of categories is appalling.

Like a politician, John Wimber is not promising unequivocally that each person will be healed. But it would seem that his mixture of generalization and over-confidence results in all but the wary being misled.

3. Power evangelism

One of the most contentious parts of John Wimber's speaking and writing has been his distinction between evangelism and power evangelism, with the resulting distinction between Christian conversion (inferior and superior).

When this matter was raised, John Wimber expressed dissatisfaction with his teaching both in Canberra (where he spoke of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ evangelism) and in his book. He explained that his book was not written by him, but came from tapes and notes of his seminars. He had not read the manuscript in detail or critically before its publication.

When asked to publicly repudiate this false distinction (between natural and supernatural evangelism), to withdraw his erroneous book and to desist from talking of power evangelism, he equivocated. The book is wrong and “needs re-writing” and he was “wrong” in his address at Canberra, but somehow this is not to be taken as a serious problem.

He agreed that the book on power evangelism was imbalanced, lacking as it does any real exposition of the gospel or evangelism. However, this was due to the manner of its composition and plain oversight.

4. Sufficiency of Scriptures

This topic was more difficult to discuss because of the need for precise terminology to avoid misunderstandings.

John Wimber was keen to stand in the Evangelical tradition, upholding the inspiration and authority of the infallible and inerrant Scripture which is sufficient for all matters of the Christian life. However, this was because he had not understood the implications of his ‘words of knowledge’, which go well beyond Scripture and play an essential part in his Christian living. John's adviser, Jack Deere, assured him and us that he did not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture.

Thus, the ministry of gifts is used to add significantly to the Scripture as the authoritative voice of God for Christian living.

5. Truth

No-one claiming to be a Christian can be unconcerned about truth. All of us must vote for it, along with motherhood, prayer, the Lord's supper and apple pie.

John Wimber's teaching on ‘The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit’ proposes that the Pentecostal movement at the turn of the century and the Charismatic movement of the 1960s were truly movements of the Holy Spirit. However, John Wimber thinks that some of the central teachings of these two movements (concerning baptism in the Spirit and the place of tongues) were wrong. So the movements which taught error were inspired by the Spirit of truth!

This kind of confusion of truth and error is reflected in his books when opponents of evangelical faith are portrayed as having conversions or being great saints and advocates of signs and wonders. This is particularly so with his ready acceptance of Roman Catholics.

When the matter was raised with John, he refused to countenance criticism of charismatics. He accepted that healing in the name of Mary was wrong. He pleaded ignorance of some of his Roman Catholic examples in his books. He didn't know much about them; in fact he did not even know who they were or that he had cited them.

6. Unity

The discussion of truth led naturally to the issue of unity. John Wimber sees the ‘third wave’ as a unifying force for Christians. Those outside it see it as divisive. Each can blame the other for the divisions.

It was suggested that the ‘third wave’ was not so much uniting Christians as re-aligning them on the basis of common experience instead of truth. This was denied by John; he wanted to say that truth was important.

When challenged about our unity in the cross, he again denied that he had been distracted from the cross, or that he allowed the signs and wonders ministry to be less than cross-centred. The Vineyard songbook was cited, where 52 out of 53 songs fail to mention the cross! John agreed that this was awful. He has tried to correct this, but his writers have very little or no theological training. (Those present at the evangelistic rally held on the Thursday night of the conference may have noticed the striking absence of the cross or repentance in the preaching.)

Discussion ranged widely and freely over these topics for almost three hours. The meeting concluded with an invitation to cancel the Spiritual Warfare Conference and to go home to America.

Summarizing such a meeting is very difficult. On all appearances, John was trying to answer the questions of his critics honestly and openly to satisfy us and to gain our fellowship, goodwill and acceptance. The concluding invitation to cancel the conference was an obvious disappointment to him. He did not seem to expect our continued dissatisfaction with his answers.

However, his lack of theological understanding and education makes him a most dangerous friend. He is like the ‘loaded dog’ of Henry Lawson's story. It is his friends who are most likely to be damaged by his errors.

None of us has to be right 100% of the time in order to teach. But the teacher is judged with greater strictness for the damage that he can do. We teachers must be clear on the basics, ready to admit error, quick to correct and withdraw misleading ideas, and willing to take responsibility for our faults. We must work hard to be accurate and to be accurately understood.

From the outset of our discussions, John said that God had told him not to read anything critical of his ministry because it would discourage and embitter him. He has followed this advice, and relies on his friends and co-workers to screen all critical material.

John Wimber has changed his mind on cardinal points of his teachings, yet he will not come clean publicly and denounce his former ideas. Rather, he continues to express himself in a confusing mixture of old errors, and new and contradictory insights. The truth that he does teach only further confuses Christian people into following his thoughtless theology.

In encouraging people to get in touch with the ‘supernatural’, he misrepresents the effects. In seeking unity, he welcomes and promotes the enemies of the gospel. In emphasizing extra-biblical phenomena, he undermines the centrality of the cross, the power of the word of God, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the unity of our common commitment to the truth of the gospel.

He maybe compassionate, loving, genuine and sincere, but so was the loaded dog!

Phillip Jensen | Briefing #45 | April 1990 talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit and Conversion in the Writings of Paul: Barnett & Jensen

2010-03-18T20:09:00.009+11:00

Paul’s most heated letter is to the Galatians. In his absence they had moved away from the gospel of Christ which stated that God forgives people through their faith in Jesus. Certain Jewish Christians had been teaching the Galatians that they must also be circumcised. Paul points out that justification is no longer a gift from God if anything beyond mere accepting the gift (faith) is required. The gospel promises justification on the basis of acceptance (= faith-in-Jesus); the Galatians, by making the basis achievement, had in fact said, ‘we must contribute to our own salvation… the death of Jesus is inadequate’. So incensed is the apostle that he pronounces a curse from God on such teaching.

Faith-in-Jesus, not works of the law, means justification

Yet [we] who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified (Gal. 2:16).
Quite clearly one cannot add anything to faith-in-Jesus.

Justification by faith alone is God’s characteristic way of entering into relationships with men. The ‘father’ of the Jews, Abraham, was justified by faith (3:6-8), a fact significant for the Jewish teachers who demanded Jewish circumcision as a requirement for justification. Further, those who believe in Jesus are the ‘sons of Abraham’ (3:7), that is, they have a relationship with God like Abraham’s.

God promised Abraham that the nations (Gentiles) would be blessed through him (3:8). Centuries later as Gentiles like the Galatians believed in Jesus they became sons of Abraham (3:9, 14). To undergo circumcision was to perform a work of the law, which is to be under a curse, since it is not possible to be perfected by works. But Christ in his death has become a curse, and has redeemed us from the curse of breaking the law. Thus those who believe in Jesus, rather than the circumcised, are the true descendants of Abraham (3:9, 14).

Faith-in-Jesus, not works of the law, makes us sons of God

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (3:26, own translation).
God adopts us into his family as sons because he has redeemed us from the curse of the law:

When the time had fully come God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as his sons (4:4-5).
God has changed our status from slaves to sons, by adoption, through faith in Jesus (4:1-5). God not only changes our status to sons, he also gives us the attitude of sons. Because of our adoption God gives us the Spirit of his Son so that we might, with Jesus, regard God as our ‘Abba’, our ‘dear Father’.

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying ‘Abba! Father!’ (4:6).
It must not be thought that being redeemed, being adopted, receiving the Spirit are different and successive events, divided from one another by the passing of time. No! We have all these things ‘in Christ’, that is, when we exercise faith in him. Redemption, sonship, the Holy Spirit are all ours, then and there.

This is established as follows.

Faith-in-Jesus, not works of the law, brings the Holy Spirit into our lives

Having referred to the proclamation of Christ crucified Paul inquires:

Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? (3:2).
The ‘hearing with faith’ refers to the message about Christ crucified. When the message is heard and believed the Spirit comes. This truth is restated three verses later in the form of a question:

Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith? (3:5).
Clearly God ‘supplies’ the Spirit to those who ‘hear with faith’ the message about Christ crucified. Paul’s word for ‘supplies’ means ‘supply fully, richly’. Faith in Jesus attracts the fullness of the Spirit as surely as an electromagnet attracts iron filings.

* * * *
The apostle is clearly attacking the addition of works to faith-in-Jesus. Faith-in-Jesus justifies the sinner and redeems the accused. Faith-in-Jesus confers the status of son of God on the former slave. Faith-in-Jesus brings the Spirit into our lives and enables us to regard the creator with the confidence enjoyed by Jesus—‘Abba, dear Father’. [1]

To add anything to faith-in-Jesus puts God in our debt, destroys his chosen method of having fellowship with us, places us again under the law and its curse, expels the Spirit and reintroduces the flesh. The apostle’s severest warnings are for those who denigrate faith-alone-in-Jesus or who add anything to it.

Love, the uniquely Christian attitude of concern for others, is impossible to the person in the flesh (5:18-21). Rather, the Spirit comes in response to faith-in-Jesus (5:5); faith energizes love (5:6) because the fruit of the Spirit (who is attracted by faith-in-Jesus) is love (5:22).

A spiritual, others-centred life is possible only for the person who lives by faith-in-Jesus. The old Pentecostal who demands tongues speaking in addition to faith-in-Jesus or the neo-pentecostal who prescribes ‘subsequence-consequence’ in addition to faith-in-Jesus may do well to meditate on the implications of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and his denunciation of additions to faith-in-Jesus.

The conversion watershed: 1 Corinthians 6:11

In context the apostle is referring to men whose starkly evil behaviour will exclude them from the kingdom of God—idolators, thieves, drunkards, etc. He continues, dramatically, ‘and such were some of you’. ‘Were’ indicates, first, that such evil was a pattern for some of his readers and, second, that a sharp break in the pattern had occurred. What, we may ask, happened?

You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (6:11).
Washed, sanctified, justified are in the Greek aorist tense which signifies a single or complete event. These events, then, marked the break with the old patterns. The verbs are variously describing initial Christian commitment (perhaps baptism?). ‘Washed’ (from their sins), ‘sanctified’ (set apart for God in holiness), ‘justified’ (forgiven) describe different facets of what it means to become a Christian.

The instruments of these verbs are, firstly, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the name as God’s victory in Jesus over evil (see Acts 10:43), and secondly, the Spirit of our God. Habitual sinners are washed, sanctified, justified by the name of the Lord Jesus and the Spirit of God.

The point is that a great single event is being described. It appears to us that in practice many neo-pentecostals put so much emphasis on the alleged baptism that Christian conversion sounds tame indeed. The apostle had a profound respect for the unbreakable power of sin, so that for him effective repentance and a knowledge of God as ‘dear Father’ were the real evidence of the leadership of the Holy Spirit in a man’s life. It is because a less-than-Pauline view of the power of sin prevails today that conversion to Christ is so casually regarded. We believe the New Testament teaches that Christian conversion by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God is the baptism with the Spirit of God prophesied by the Baptist.

The Holy Spirit as arrabon: 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

In context Paul is saying that he is a man of his word because God is true to his word. God’s fidelity is demonstrated in the Son of God who fulfils all God’s promises. More, his fidelity is also demonstrated by his manner of dealing with us now in our relationship with the Son of God.

Now he that stablisheth us with you in Christ, and anointed us, is God; Who also sealed us, and gave us the earnest (arrabon) of the Spirit in our hearts (2 Cor. 1:21-22, RV).
The rather stilted but accurate Revised Version distinguishes between the tenses of the verbs. ‘Stablisheth’ is present tense, indicating God’s ongoing work of imparting certainty in our hearts about Christ. We could paraphrase thus: ‘He who makes us sure about Christ’ (literally ‘Christ-wards’) is God. God continues to impart his certainty because of the decisive event in the past whose many facets include: ‘anointed’, ‘sealed’, given the ‘earnest’ (arrabon) of the Spirit. These three verbs are aorist and point to the decisive event of Christian conversion. Thus we could refer to the text: ‘He who continues to make us certain about Christ, having anointed us, sealed us and given us the first instalment of his Spirit in our hearts, is God.’

‘Anointed’ (= ‘Christed’) in the original is clearly cognate with ‘Christ’. As priests and kings were anointed with oil and ‘the Christ’ anointed with the Holy Spirit, so also are Christians ‘anointed’ (‘Christed’) with the Holy Spirit. What is meant by this? We suggest that the meaning is: ‘God… anointed us as his people.’ He appointed us to be his ‘Christ’. In 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 the body of believers = the ‘Christ’. We conclude that to be ‘Christed’ = to be baptized into the Christian congregation. The purpose of the ‘anointing’ would then be for the mutual ministry of caring and edification within the body of the local congregation with a view to growing up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ. (See Eph. 4:15; 2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; 1 Cor. 6:13-20.)

‘Sealed’ speaks of an external mark on a document denoting completion of a transaction and change of ownership. ‘Sealed’ well describes the watershed between the old and new life. We will discuss this further.

‘Earnest’ [2] (arrabon) refers to a deposit given as a security or pledge of full settlement. We pay a deposit on a homesite to secure it for ourselves and as a guarantee that we will settle in full when the legal procedures have been fulfilled. The full and final payment is the redemption of our bodies when Christ returns and the Spirit raises us up (Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:11). The arrabon makes the neo-pentecostal doctrine of post-conversion out-pouring of the Spirit impossible. Arrabon excludes the possibility of a doctrinally significant interim Spirit event. This is not to say that the Spirit is inactive in our lives in the time between the arrabon and the end. Throughout that time the Spirit is rebuking us, encouraging us, reviving us, and sanctifying us. However the New Testament offers no programme for these interim activities of the Spirit.

We do not doubt that many neo-pentecostals have enjoyed a genuine post-conversion experience of the Holy Spirit, perhaps accompanied by glossolalia. Perhaps it has been an experience of revival or reassurance. Christians all through history have enjoyed various post-conversion experiences. The difficulty is that in the last two decades it has become customary in neo-pentecostal circles to identify such experiences as ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’.

We rejoice to hear the testimony to the Spirit’s work in Christian brethren though we regret that the New Testament title ‘the baptism with the Holy Spirit’ is applied to an experience after conversion. By giving this title to their experience the neo-pentecostals in effect (and usually in practice) demand that every Christian undergo their particular experience, since this title has the weighty sanction of the word of God. We appeal to the neo-pentecostal: ‘Do not deny your experience, but please call it something else.’ So long as the neo-pentecostal calls a post-conversion experience ‘the baptism’ God’s people will continue to be divided on this issue.

Grieve not… be filled with the Spirit: Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30; 5:18 ff.

In the first of these references in Ephesians (1:13-14) we are reminded of Paul’s emphasis in Galatians 3:1-5 as well as 2 Corinthians 1:21-22.

Christ: in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession… (Eph. 1:13-14, RV).
The three verbs italicised are in the aorist tense, the first two are participles and the third is an indicative. This construction usually stresses that the action of the participle is prior to that of the indicative. Does this verse then support ‘subsequence’ as the AV perhaps suggests and as neo-pentecostal writers maintain? [3] Dunn in a recent monograph has written, ‘The aorist participle does in fact usually express antecedent action, but it is the context not the grammatical form which determines this. And the context here indicates that we should take the two verbs as two sides of the one event: it was when they believed that God sealed them with the Spirit. As in Galatians 3:2, man’s step of faith is met by God’s gift of the Spirit.’ [4]

We have already discussed the thought of the Holy Spirit as ‘seal’ and ‘earnest’. He becomes ours when we hear and believe in Jesus through the gospel. The former thought expresses new ownership while the latter expresses our urgent expectation of final redemption. The apostle nowhere describes an interim Spirit-event programmed by God for every Christian, even though a person’s daily experience of the Spirit is authentic. Nothing else than the redemption of our bodies is set before us as the object of our hope after conversion. The two mountain peaks are conversion and final redemption. With the former behind us noting is to obscure the latter as the object of our hope.

The second and third reference in Ephesians contain present imperatives about the Holy Spirit. Such references inform us what our interim attitudes to the Holy Spirit should be. God has sealed us with the Spirit. We now belong to him. (See also 1 Cor. 6:19-20.) The two texts contain the imperatives.

Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption (4:30, RV).
Stay filled with the Spirit (5:18, own translation). [5]
Both present imperatives introduce ethical sections. Taken together, a pattern of Christian behaviour emerges which befits the person who now belongs to God. The Spirit who has sealed us, whom we are not to grieve, and by whom we are to be controlled, is the Holy Spirit.

It is a matter for regret that so few churchgoing people live by the words of the apostle. We sadden the Spirit and rob God of his glory by failing to fulfil these simple but challenging words. Every part of our life, every human relationship, is touched on by Paul in these latter chapters of Ephesians.

Neo-pentecostals believe in the conservation doctrine of sanctification and Christian holiness. They claim that the ‘baptism’ is for power to witness. [6] In other words they sever power for witness from godly behaviour. And yet in all the Pauline corpus the apostle never enjoins power for witness. His emphasis is on godly behaviour, to the brother in Christ and to the outsider. The believer is indeed to seek the salvation of the unbeliever but his speech is to be accompanied by a godly life. (See 1 Cor. 10:27; 11:1; 1 Pet. 2:11-12; 3:1-6.)

It would be unfair to single out the neo-pentecostal for omitting this emphasis. Zealous fundamentalists generally appear to have little understanding of the relationship in the New Testament between ethics and evangelism. But it is the neo-pentecostals who have made a theological principle out of severing the two.

Become what you are: Colossians

Paul wrote to the Colossians because false teachers had undermined the uniqueness of Jesus, placing him among an angelic hierarchy. He was merely part of the ‘fulness’ or collection of aeons which comprised the deity above. Further, they had instructed men on the necessity to submit to ordinances about abstaining from the elements of life, especially food and drink. The apostle counters this teaching by insisting that Christ is before all things and that all things consist in him. All the fulness dwells in him (see 1:15-19). Moreover, through his death and resurrection, men are completely reconciled to God. Paul stretches human language to the limits to convey on the one hand the unique pre-eminence of Christ, and on the other our own absolute salvation and safety in him. (See, e.g., 3:3-4; 2:13-15.)

Paul combines these related absolutes in one text:

For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him are ye made full… (2:9-10, RV).
At this point we must note a feature of the New Testament. On one hand we are reckoned as ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ in Christ. Yet our lives still have the marks of the old nature and we are forced to live out our days in ‘this present evil age’.

The apostles address us as still sinful yet possessing the Holy Spirit. We are exhorted to ‘become what we are’, in the sense of what God holds us to be, namely ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’. The motive on which such exhortations are based is that God regards us as already complete. We are never called upon to be good in order to obtain; it is because of what we already possess from God that the claims of godliness are pressed on our consciences.

Thus it is the task of the minister to

… warn every man and teach every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ (1:28, slightly altered).
The neo-pentecostals betray little awareness of this Biblical ‘become what you already are’. Paul’s purpose for men after conversion is maturity, to which he makes ethical exhortations. The purpose of the neo-pentecostals for men after conversion is the ‘baptism’.

According to their doctrine the baptism is the instrument of a man’s fullness; they thus miss the significance of Colossians 2:9-10. In practice the baptism becomes the source not only of power for witnessing, but also deeper relationships with God, love of the scriptures, etc. The fullness is located apart from Jesus, and subsequent to our experience in him. The way to fulness or the baptism is inevitably ‘steps’ or ‘conditions’. In our opinion, despite disclaimers to the contrary, neo-pentecostal Christology falls short of that of the New Testament, since they find Jesus insufficient for their power needs. Inevitably therefore the ‘ought’ or ‘ethics’ of their system belong to those expressly repudiated by the apostle (2:20-23).

The Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ: 1 Corinthians 12

We hold that the phrase ‘the body of Christ’ reflects the dynamic idea of meeting together. Some usages of the phrase refer to his people described as already in the heavenlies. As such their meeting is continuous. The majority of usages refer to the assemblies of believers here and now. As such their meetings are intermittent. The key ideas appear to be meeting together in Jesus’ name, and the exercising of gifts within an organic group animated by the same Spirit. Such a group is variously described as ‘temple’, ‘bride’ and ‘lump’. Paul customarily addresses such an assembly as a church (Greek: ekklesia). He only once uses the term to describe something other than a local church (‘I persecuted the church of God’, repeated three times: 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil. 3:6) and here it is quite possible he is referring to the church in heaven with Jesus, since Jesus asked Paul on the road to Damascus, ‘Why do you persecute me?’

The whole idea is dynamic. It is people together caring for one another, belonging to one another, serving one another, edifying one another. To belong to a church is not to belong to an institution but to be a member of a body, to be part of a living dynamic whole, which belongs to Christ. Paul goes so far as to say that the body of Christ, the local congregation, is Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13).

The Holy Spirit alone makes it possible to confess ‘Jesus is Lord’, so great was the previous grip of idolatry (12:2-3). The same Spirit also imparts the various gifts from the Lord Jesus to believers in fellowship for the good of all (12:4-11). One and the same Spirit baptizes men into one body, the Christ, even though their gifts are diverse (12:12-13). Conversion/confession, endowment, incorporation—all are from the Lrod through (or by) the Holy Spirit.

We are baptized with the Spirit into Christ, ‘Christ’ being understood as the body of Christ present and local as well as future and heavenly (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; 1 Cor. 6:13-20). For what purpose does the Lord baptize us thus with the Spirit into one body, [7] ‘the Christ’? His purpose is that we are to belong to one another, despite deep socio-racial difference (‘Jews or Greeks, slaves or free’); and that we are to minister to one another as in a body despite the diversity and non-interchangeability of gifts.

It seems to us that it is the neglect of this teaching about the Holy Spirit which explains how otherwise orthodox Bible-teaching churches manage to remain so loveless and so conspicuously lacking in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We do not discover any teaching here about a subsequent baptism by the Holy Spirit to provide gifts for the body of Christ. Rather, as people are taught about belonging to a body and participation in its life of mutual upbuilding, they discover in reality the truth of 1 Corinthians 12.

Conservative evangelicals have, in our opinion, been far too clergy-orientated. We thoroughly endorse their emphasis on the importance of teaching and evangelism by properly equipped ministers, but we regret that the plain meaning of scripture about life in the body has been so neglected. Institutionalized and orthodox Christians may have a great deal to learn from the corporate nature of the neo-pentecostal meetings and their joy and vitality together.

It is interesting to observe, however, that there are ordinary congregations where the significance of the church has been studied and where caring, sharing, joyful communities have emerged. Christians have acted on the resources God has given them; they have not needed to seek a new experience to grant them this.

---

1. Some neo-pentecostal writers, e.g., Stafford Young, What is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit?, pp. 7-8, attempt to find ‘subsequence’ in Galatians 3:14:
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
We note the following points:

(a) His assertion that the ‘we’ = Christians as opposed to Gentiles disregards the fact that the Galatian Christian readers were Gentiles. The whole point of 2:16-4:6 is that Gentiles are sons of Abraham through faith-in-Jesus apart from circumcision. Paul’s ‘we’ merely stresses that the Gentile Christians were, by faith-in-Jesus, as fully Christian as a Jewish Christian like himself. Thus in 4:3 he, a Jew, can so identify himself with Gentiles (who are now Christians) as to include himself in their ‘former idolatry’.
(b) The second ‘that’ does not introduce a second concept quite removed in time from the first. The second ‘that’ is explanatory. It acts as a bridge or an ‘=’ sign. It is important to read the whole argument, 2:16-4:6, where the message is that faith-in-Jesus brings justification (which Abraham and his true sons enjoy). Justification makes men sons of God. God gives his Spirit to his sons.
2. RSV: guarantee. Modern Greek uses this word of engagement for marriage. See further G. Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1967, Vol. 1, p. 475.
3. E.g., Stafford Young, What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?, pp. 7-8.
4. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (SCM Press Ltd., London, 1970), p. 159. Dunn gives two pages of evidence as to the context of Ephesians 1 and he refers to the definitive Burton, Moods and Tenses (p. 61), as an authority for the priority of context over grammar.
5. The present tense of 5:18 precludes the possibility of a ‘second’ experience. The text is calling for continual submission to the leadership of the Holy Spirit as expressed by the elements of behaviour which follow. Hence these are daily experiences.
6. In practice they claim much more for the baptism.
7. Some neo-pentecostal authors (e.g., J. Baker, Baptized into one Spirit, p. 17, and S. Young, What is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? p. 3) translate 1 Corinthians 12:13 as ‘in one Spirit we were all baptized with respect to one body’, thus allowing the neo-pentecostal doctrine of a subsequent experience of the Spirit ‘for the benefit of the body’. It is true that the Greek preposition eis can mean ‘into’ or ‘with respect to’. Context must decide how eis is to be understood. (See C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book of the New Testament (CUP, London, 1963), p. 69.)

Paul’s argument is that God desires unity for the Christian congregation despite the diversity of its membership. To this end he binds the body metaphor to his readers. The context does not support the view of Baker or Young that we are baptized with the Spirit with respect to the body and the exercise of gifts within it. Rather, we were baptized with the Spirit into a body with respect to its unity (see v. 12). In this view we follow every major English translation of the Bible (AV, RV, RSV, NEB, Phillips, TEV, Knox, etc., but not the Jerusalem Bible which is indeterminative). Another neo-pentecostal, J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongues Speaking (Fountain Trust, London, 1970), p. 12, following the translators’ consensus also takes eis as meaning ‘into’. Baker and Young are out on a limb.

Weakness and Power in the New Testament: Barnett & Jensen

2010-01-02T10:47:00.008+11:00

The fundamental tenet in neo-pentecostalism is that conversion and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are distinct experiences.1 Whereas conversion is an experience of the ‘person’ of Jesus Christ, the baptism is an experience with the ‘person’ of the Holy Spirit—different experiences with different ‘persons’.

Let us hear the answers the neo-pentecostals give to our questions: Who baptises me with the Holy Spirit? Jesus does. When? Usually at some time after conversion—though sometimes at the same time. Why does Jesus baptise me thus? To give me power to witness to him.

It is maintained that this experience is intended for every converted person. Indeed, unless and until believers enjoy the baptism the church will remain powerless. We are encouraged to check out the classical Acts passages for the evidence for these claims.

The Acts passage and power

As we inspect these passages let us ask two questions. Was there any pattern of double experience of the Holy Spirit? Did the coming of the Holy Spirit lead to power for witness to Jesus? Let us confine ourselves to the evidence as we set out these cases and questions:

Are there two experiences of the Holy Spirit?
Pentecost—No: one Holy Spirit reference (2:4).
Samaria—No: one Holy Spirit reference (8:17).
Saul—No: one Holy Spirit reference (9:17).
Caesarea—No: one Holy Spirit reference (10:44).
Ephesus—No: one Holy Spirit reference (19:6).

Was there power leading to witness?
Pentecost—Tongues (2:4) followed by witness to the resurrection (2:14 ff.).
Samaria—Something observable. No reference to power or witness.
Saul—Saul proclaims Jesus as Son of God (9:20).
Caesarea—Tongues (10:46). No reference to power or witness.
Ephesus—Tongues/prophecy (19:6). No reference to power or witness.
Let us note two matters.

1.The neo-pentecostal position demands two receptions of the Holy Spirit: one to make conversion possible; the other for the baptism of the Spirit. In each of these passages there is only one reference to the Holy Spirit; there is not pattern of subsequence.2
2.There is no evidence for power-for-witness at Samaria, Caesarea or Ephesus. There reference to witness/proclamation are confined to those who were specifically called to this ministry (Acts 1:8; 9:15; cf. 22:15 and 26:16-18). The onus of proof is on the neo-pentecostal to demonstrate that the coming of the Spirit in these other cases led to power for witness.
‘Power’ in the New Testament

The English ‘power’ translates the Greek word dynamis. From the concordance we observe the following:

1.The evidence for dynamis with respect to evangelism is confined to apostles and those recognised by the laying on of hands for specific ministries.
2.Paul’s apostolic mission was accompanied by dynamis (Rom. 15:18-19). Yet he pointedly affirms that the gospel is the dynamis of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). It is the gospel of Christ crucified which is the dynamis of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 24).
3.The evidence of dynameis by ordinary church members (as opposed to apostles and those specifically recognised) is confined to internal congregational situations, not evangelism (Gal. 3:5; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28).
4.The majority of the remaining references to dynamis refer to Christ’s resurrection power released in us for godly living (Eph. 1:19; 3:16, 20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:11).
5.The available evidence (including early church history contemporary with later New Testament documents) suggest a profusion of dynameis clustered around the apostles’ testimony to Jesus:

... so great salvation, which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, by the signs and wonders and manifold powers [dynameis], and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will’ (Heb. 2:3-4, RV, authors’ italics, cf. Heb. 6:5).
As early as the 230s Origen equated the ‘greater works’ (John 14:12) with ‘miracles’ of conversion (Contra Celsum, Book 2).

Again the burden of proof lies with the neo-pentecostals to establish that ordinary Christians had special Holy Spirit power for witness, and that a subsequent empowering of the Holy Spirit for witness, beyond conversion, was normative in the New Testament.

The flesh and the Spirit in Romans 8

The consistent use of the present tense in Romans 7 indicates that Paul is speaking about the believer. Paul, speaking personally, reveals what happens in the life of the Christian when the demands of the law confront the still sinful will. Such a believer experiences anguish in conscience in the awareness of his moral failures. He is the ‘wretched’ man who calls out for deliverance.

In Romans 8 Paul specifies the two areas from which we need deliverance: sin and death.

How am I delivered from sin? The answer is found in a further question: what is the nature of my deliverance? It is the deliverance of FAITH. It is the conviction that the sins of my flesh have been condemned in the flesh of God’s own Son (8:1, 3). Therefore as a forgiven sinner I no longer live in the flesh. Instead I walk with God, in the Spirit. Because of this relationship, Spirit with spirit, I now fulfil the deepest requirement of the law, which is love (8:4).

But it is easy to slip back into the flesh, to fall away from faith-in-Jesus to self-reliance. This is to become a works-based person. Consequently we have the mind of the flesh, not the mind of the Spirit (8:5). Such persons are bound for death (8:6), are opposed to God (8:7), cannot please God (8:8).

We insist that faith-in-Christ is not a work. It is a relationship. In order to receive the so-called baptism the neo-pentecostal lays down conditions beyond faith-in-Jesus.3 We maintain that any such condition, however innocent it may appear, is in fact a ‘work’. Faith-in-Jesus is not a condition, it is a relationship. Other prescribed attitudes like ‘emptying’ or ‘faith-to-receive’ do not reflect the New Testament and are in fact works. As such they belong to the flesh. They are designed to bring the Holy Spirit. In fact they drive him away. They create a mind which is actually opposed to God.

It may be suggested that such a statement is grossly unfair to the movement whose whole raison d’etre is the Holy Spirit. Yet we detect a faulty perspective about the Holy Spirit in neo-pentecostal writers precisely because of their preoccupation with the Spirit. It seems that the alleged baptism is more significant for them than conversion to Christ. Neo-pentecostal preachers speak about conversion in minimal terms as compared with the superlatives they reserve for the baptism. We maintain that conversion to Christ occupies in experience and teaching a large place in the perspectives of the New Testament.

We suggest true spirituality will be seen in the preacher and writer who exalts Christ and salvation in him.

We have reservations about the claims that the doctrinal difference between Protestants and Catholics are transcended by the ‘baptism’. The conservative evangelical insistence on justification by faith alone is made to sound outmoded and sterile next to the new and exciting ecumenical fellowship. We do not deny the fact of ‘fellowship’ in such situations. It is a fellowship based on common subjective experience and attitude. It is not, however, a fellowship in the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42). It is not a fellowship in the truth that God freely saves man through the death of Jesus. We conclude it to be not a fellowship of the Holy Spirit, but of the human spirit. That is not necessarily to condemn it. It may lead profitably to a fellowship in the Spirit. But let us be clear that if there is no fundamental agreement in the gospel of the grace of God it is not fellowship in the Holy Spirit, however emotionally satisfying it may be.

The other great predicament dealt with by Paul in Romans 8 is death. How am I delivered from death? The answer is again found in a further question: what is the nature of my deliverance from death? It is the deliverance of HOPE. It is future. It is not yet. It is unseen.

What is seen is my inextricable involvement in a universe which is dying. But wait. The groans of the universe and man are not the groans of a dying person, but a woman in labour who is about to give birth—to a new, utterly free creation. And the groans are not the groans of death but of expectancy. They are not hopeless but hopeful.

My groaning in this corrupt world is entirely compatible with the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life—he does not free me except in hope. Indeed the groans themselves are in one place (v. 26) said to be the voice of the Spirit.

Neo-pentecostalism is preoccupied with healing and power. It despises wrinkles and short-sight and sickness as indicating failure to grasp God’s power. It little realises that of the very groans of the weak, suffering man Paul writes ‘... the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groans which cannot be uttered.’

We go so far as to say that it is the will of God for us to have the knowledge of him in vessels of earth so that the exceeding greatness of the pwer may be of God and not from ourselves (2 Cor. 4:7).

We conclude our remarks on Romans 8 by observing Pauls’ manner of describing the Holy Spirit:

‘the Spirit of God’ (v. 9);
‘the Spirit of Christ’ (v. 9);
‘Christ in you’ (v. 10).
This bears on the neo-pentecostal assertion that the baptism with/in the Holy Spirit is an experience with a different ‘person’ distinct from our experience of Jesus Christ. We insist that the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ Spirit now indwelling in us. The Holy Spirit is Jesus with us and in us now. He is Jesus’ Spirit residing in our spirit.

The following texts make this clear:

Romans 8:9-10: Spirit of God... Spirit of Christ... Christ in you...
Galatians 2:20: Christ lives in me.
2 Corinthians 3:16-17: The Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit.
Acts 16:6-7: The Holy Spirit forbade... the Spirit of Jesus did not allow...
Matthew 28:20: Lo, I [Jesus] am with you always, to the close of the age.
John 14:16-18: The Father will give you another Counsellor... I [Jesus] will come to you.
Clearly the Holy Spirit and Jesus are so linked in our experience that the characteristic neo-pentecostal division between them is unfair to the New Testament data. When we yield our lives to Jesus, his Spirit comes into our lives. If we do not have his Spirit in our lives we do not belong to Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. There is no other Spirit. If the foregoing is correct the neo-pentecostal is, in effect, forced to say that the Spirit-baptised believer has the Spirit of Jesus (conversion) and the Holy Spirit (the baptism)—two different Spirits!

Neo-pentecostals say that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not essentially an experience of the person of Jesus Christ; it is an experience of the Holy Spirit. Are there two different Spirits: the Spirit of Jesus in conversion and the Holy Spirit in the baptism?

The Spirit and metamorphosis: 2 Corinthians 3-5

This passage, like Romans 8, deals with the work of the Spirit in men who belong to a decaying world. Paul’s emphasis is on the decay in the body of the believer. It is suggested, not implausibly, that the awareness of death was very real to Paul at the time of writing (see 2 Cor. 1:9).

When Moses ‘turned to the Lord’ he removed the veil from his face. When men turn to the Lord (Jesus) the veil of heart-hardness is removed. To turn to the Lord is to turn to the new covenant of the Holy Spirit and to turn away from the old covenant of the letter. To turn to the Lord Jesus is spirit (as opposed to letter) and brings the Spirit of the Lord into one’s life.

But the vessel into which this precious awareness of the Lord comes is ‘earthen’ (4: 6-7). Thus Paul says, ‘our outward man is decaying’ (4:16, RV). Is Paul discouraged by the disintegration of his own body? He is not.

Why is Paul not discouraged? While our outward man is disintegrating God is creating another ‘building’, eternal in the heavens, with which to clothe us, so that we will not be found naked in death. We yearn for this house now because God has already given us, in the midst of our decay, the initial instalment of the Holy Spirit, whom we shall possess in full measure at the end. Then we shall be clothed upon with our new house.

In our decaying state we continue to behold two objects. First, the glory of the Lord Jesus (3:8; 4:6) and also, the unseen and eternal thing God has for us (4:18-5:1). All the while the Holy Spirit is creating in us an ever-increasing ‘weight of glory’ (4:16-17). Thus we are transformed from the glory of Christ made known to us in the gospel to the glory of the End (3:18; cf. 4:6 and 4:17, 18).

Decay, then, is not against the will of God. It is within God’s plan, because God has a new creation for us in heaven for which the Holy Spirit gives us a powerful anticipation. We are to set our hearts on the future redemption of our bodies, the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Neo-pentecostals refer to a great post-conversion experience of the Holy Spirit for power. They call man to set their hope on it to empower them to witness and heal, etc. The apostle has no such expectancy. Nor does he hold it out for his readers. His expectancy for what is visible about him is decline and decay. But his expectancy for what is invisible about him is an ever-increasing weight of glory. The only second experience the believer can hope for is the final redemption.

Paul and the apostles of power: 2 Corinthians 10-13

Power is one of the major concepts in neo-pentecostalism. Neo-pentecostals claim to have received power through the alleged baptism. They are apostles for the experience of power among the ‘weak’ and ‘powerless’ ordinary believers.

An interesting parallel is found in 2 Corinthians 10-13 where some apostles or higher religious experience had intruded themselves into the church (11:5).To them Paul was ‘in the flesh’ (10:3, RV) and ‘weak’ (10:10). He was not regarded as a member of the ‘Christ’ party (10:7, cf. 1 Cor. 1:12). Christ did not speak through Paul (13:3).

Paul has ‘introduced’ the Corinthians to Jesus. They and Jesus are engaged and they will be married when he comes. Paul, who has introduced them, is jealous on Christ’s behalf for his fiancée (11:2). But these apostles of power have now matched the Corinthians with another Jesus. Thus Paul complains that the Corinthians received another Jesus whom Paul did not preach, received a different spirit from the one they received, accepted a different gospel from the one they accepted (11:4). Thus the simple and pure relationship which was previously directed towards Jesus has been corrupted.

Paul not only describes such apostles as tyrants (11:20) and servants of Satan (11:13-15); he deliberately sets out to boast of his weakness. His long catalogue of weakness is crowned by the ignominy of being lowered down the wall at Damascus (11:16-33). Then, indeed, he recounts an experience of ‘power’ he had fourteen (!) years ago (12:1-4). He speaks impersonally and no details are given. But Paul will not boast of this power. His boast is weakness (12:5-6). His weakness is an undisclosed ‘thorn’ which pinned him to the earth, for removal of which he prayed three times. It was from Satan, over whom neo-pentecostals promise power; yet Paul was powerless to defeat it. But the Lord said (and Paul still hears him), ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’ (12:9). Paul indicates that his experience of power in this revelation tended to exalt him (12:7). Indeed such experiences will always exalt the sinful ego. Therefore weakness, not power, is Christ’s will. His power, which is his mercy, is made perfect in the weakness and vulnerability of human experience.

The neo-pentecostal claims to have power. Quite understandably he wants us to have power. His motives appear to be righteous. But righteous motives do not justify his proselytisation. He must ascertain whether power is Jesus’ will for his people.

God actually blesses us in weakness.

The onus is on the neo-pentecostal to demonstrate that it is the will of Jesus for us to be power-filled Christians. Unless he can demonstrate this let him desist from being an apostle of power.

On the basis of Romans 8 we say to the neo-pentecostal: don’t tempt us with your power lest you deprive us of the hope given to us by the birth-pangs of the new creation through the Holy Spirit.

On the basis of 2 Corinthians 3-5 we say to the neo Pentecostal: don’t tempt us with your power lest you deprive us of that renewal in the inner man as we contemplate the unseen but real eternal weight of glory.

On the basis of 2 Corinthians 10-13 we say to the neo-pentecostal: we don’t want your power. We are weak. We want to have perfected in us his power, which is his mercy. Power in sinful man will deify him, will remove him from the mercy of the Lord, which is his power to save us. His real power is his mercy, though we are afflicted by a messenger from Satan about which we are powerless, even though we pray. In this situation where we are powerless he is powerful, because we are thankfully aware of this all-sufficient mercy.

---

1. See, e.g. J. Baker, Baptized in One Spirit, pp. 13-14.
2.Neo-pentecostals are forced to say that the experience of the Spirit in conversion is so insignificant that the author of Acts does not even refer to it. This is a strange omission in view of the enormous weight given to the Spirit’s work in conversion expounded elsewhere in the N.T., e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:11.
3.E.g., J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongue Speaking According to Scripture, pp. 84 ff., gives the steps to the baptism as dissatisfaction with my spiritual condition, true repentance, expressed in obedience, and believing prayer. We regard these as conditions, as works. If a friend promises me a gift I simply believe my friend as a man of his work. I manifestly regard his simple promises as suspect if I begin to exercise myself in tortuous steps. These steps express lack of trust: I need to secure favour by ever more complex inner attitudes. These are works of the flesh. They expel the Spirit. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Pentecostals and Conservative Evangelicals: Barnett & Jensen

2010-01-01T20:46:00.011+11:00

Neo-pentecostals and conservative evangelicals enjoy a broad agreement about Christian doctrine. Both groups agree about the authority of the Bible, the efficacy of the atonement, the unique Sonship of Jesus and his return, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and our obligation to fulfil the great commission to bring men under the lordship of Jesus. For all of that we are genuinely grateful. The differences are found in such areas as the nature of the Christian life and in the way we use the Bible. Let us identify areas where the most serious differences occur.

The neo-pentecostal doctrine of ‘subsequence-consequence’

To be fair, ‘subsequence-consequence’ is our title. Neo-pentecostals believe that God intends already converted people to have a great religious experience subsequent to conversion. This is most frequently referred to as the ‘baptism in (or with) the Holy Spirit’. The chief consequence of the subsequent experience is ‘power’. It is power for signs, power for witness; but some writers extend the consequences to greater godliness, love for God, family, etc.

We reject this doctrine because there is not one command or promise in the New Testament that we should have this experience. Neo-pentecostals are unable to produce a single promise or command of either the Lord or his apostles with respect to subsequence-consequence.

The neo-pentecostal doctrine of ‘conditions’ or ‘steps’

If there is a baptism for power, the next question is: how can I have it? Harper1 speaks of ‘conditions of receiving’; Schep2 refers to ‘steps’ to ‘fullness’. We schematise their conditions as follows:

These conditions are appealingly righteous. But they presuppose a clear command and/or promise in scripture that we have a baptism for power subsequent to conversion. Yet there is not one text in the New Testament where a baptism for power subsequent to conversion is promised or commanded.

In spirit, the above conditions really belong to becoming and being a Christian. They are the marks of the Christian attitude to God. Indeed one must seriously doubt that a person is a believer at all if these marks are missing. But once a person becomes a Christian these things, when considered as conditions of a not-yet-arrived baptism for power, become ‘works’. It is common for people to fulfil the conditions and not receive the baptism. So they must fulfil the conditions at a deeper level, then at an even deeper level, etc.

At conversion we are promised that the sinner who genuinely comes to Jesus in repentance and faith will be received. But the experience of the baptism depends on my attitudes reaching such a pitch before it can happen. Conversion is by faith alone; the baptism is by attitude-achievement. This seems like beginning in the Spirit and being perfected by the flesh. We believe that the required baptism with its prior attitudinal conditions is similar to the false gospel condemned in Galatians.

The neo-pentecostal use of the Bible

We have grave difficulties with common neo-pentecostal practice at this point.

We regret, for example, that many writers and preachers use without qualification a disputed text of the Bible. It is almost beyond doubt that Mark 16:9-20 is no part of the original text since it does not occur in our best and earliest manuscripts. The reader must judge the propriety of binding on men as God’s word a passage which honest scholarly opinion doubts to be part of the word of God. (See Mark 16:9-20 and Speaking in Tongues)

Further, it is an invalid method to take narrative parts of the Bible and convert them into promises or commands. The author may hold a narrative incident up for imitation, but it ought not to be assumed that the author is doing more than informing us what happened (unless this is clearly indicated). The black deeds in the latter part of the Judges are not commands to ‘do likewise’. Nor are Job’s comforters examples for us. The communal sharing of the Jerusalem church does not bind our consciences. In other words a description is not a prescription. ‘Is’ is not ‘ought’. The scriptures that bind our wills and consciences are commands and promises of the Lord or his apostles as found in recorded speech or in the epistles.

We are unhappy about the neo-pentecostal method of deducing doctrine from the scriptures. How, for example, do they establish their doctrine of the baptism as subsequence-consequence?

Their method

1.They begin with the Baptist’s prophecy that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit. (It is usually assumed, without discussion, that the Baptist’s prophecy refers to their concept of subsequence-consequence).
2.They proceed to the five celebrated Acts passages and conclude they teach the baptism as subsequence-consequence. We observe that their doctrine of subsequence-consequence is only really a possibility in two of the passages (Samaria and Ephesus), but that both of these passages are equally capable of alternative or even better interpretations. Further, the one occasion where the Baptist’s prophecy of the baptism is quoted is applied to the case everyone agrees is impossible for subsequence-consequence, the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 11:15-17 and 15:7-9).

Our method

1.We also begin with the Baptist’s prophecy that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit. We do not assume that we know what Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit means.
2.We then proceed to clear promises and statements where John’s prophecy is explained. What did Jesus understand by John’s prophecy? Thus we investigate the Paraclete passages in John 14-16. What did the evangelist understand? Thus we investigate John 7:37-39. What did the apostles upon whom the Spirit came understand? Thus we investigate Acts 2:38.

We believe that the narrative passages in the Acts have been misused and the promises/commands about the baptism with the Spirit ignored or submitted to violent treatment. Let us consider one of these promises. We regard Acts 2:38 as a very important promise. On the day of Pentecost those Jews who heard Peter’s explanation that the Spirit had come because Jesus was made Lord and Christ (whom they had crucified) asked Peter what they were to do. Peter replied, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’

Here is the clearest of statements: do this (command) and you shall receive that (promise). This command/promise is the norm for receiving ( = being baptised in) the Holy Spirit. It appears as the norm again and again in the Acts (e.g., 8:15-16 where the abnormality in the delay between command and promise is indicated by the ‘not yet fallen… they had only been baptised’; see also 10:43-44; 11:15-17; 15:8-11; 19:2; 22:16). Yet despite the clarity of this command/promise M. Harper,3 for example, drives a wedge between the command and the promise. He prises the promise away from the command and makes it relate to the allegedly subsequent experience, the baptism. But the command and the promise belong together and they both relate to the gift of the Holy Spirit in conversion ( = the baptism with/in the Spirit). By teasing the scripture apart in this manner the concept of subsequence is falsely imported into the passage.

Again, we cannot agree with a tendency to import into a passage information from the other places where there is no clear evidential link. Harper4 actually insists, without even arguing the case, that the twelve Ephesian disciples were leading figures in the notable progress in the gospel in Asia recorded in Acts 19:8 ff. For this there is not one shred of evidence.

Finally, neo-pentecostal writers generalise too easily. For example, can we assume, as they do, that every congregation was as gifted as the church at Corinth? Can we assume that tongues speaking continued to be a feature of the church life at Jerusalem, Caesarea or Ephesus? Can we assume that every believer could perform the signs which were performed by the apostles or that they apostles were able to do them at will? All this is assumed. Then all one needs is an out-of-context proof-text like ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever’ and we have an emotional appeal to our consciences that we are spiritually ‘B’ grade because Jesus isn’t performing miracles through us today in the same way.

What do we think of the neo-pentecostal experiences?

Most will agree with the following propositions about the nature of religious experience.

1.Each of us is psychologically complex. We do not fully understand ourselves.
2.Psychological make-up varies from person to person. Men are psychologically different from women, for example.
3.The scriptures say little about the subjective details in Christian experience.
4.Religious experience varies from person to person and is, in itself, no final guide to godliness.
5.God constantly blesses us as his children. Sometimes our emotions are caught up more than at other times. Such occasions stand out in our memories. They are not necessarily greater blessings simply because we were more emotionally involved.

We do not deny the reality of the Holy Spirit experiences of many neo-pentecostals. We locate the problem in the interpretation placed on spiritual experiences, especially post-conversion experiences. For example, one person may have been a Christian for some time and then come into a new assurance of forgiveness. Another person may discover a new spiritual dimension y submitting to the lordship of Jesus. Yet another may be awakened as to gifts of evangelism of which he was hitherto unaware. So we could go on. The possibilities are as endless as the human personality is complex and the Christian experience diverse. Truly our God is inexhaustible in his treasures of blessings for our human diversity and complexity.

In the past twenty years we have witnessed a resurgence of spiritual interests throughout the world. One could attribute this to the age of anxiety in which we are living, as well as the final bankruptcy of theological liberalism (‘God is dead’) and the cold irrelevancy of mainstream orthodox churches. The present resurgence is in part, not doubt, a reaction against all of this.

As individuals have been caught up in this worldwide resurgence it has become the custom to describe the nature of one’s own spiritual upsurge as ‘the baptism with the Spirit’. We do not deny nor seek to destroy the reality of the experience. But we are pleading that a proper interpretation be placed upon it. Let those concerned speak of ‘spiritual reawakening’ or ‘spiritual renewal’. Let them supply information about date and place if they wish, as a form of testimony. But let them not bring biblical terminology to bear on a range of experiences which scripture doesn’t preclude, but about which it gives no detail.

What we plead is that we stop trying to read into the scriptures subjective details of post-conversion spiritual experience. Immediately the Bible is invoked for details two things seem always to happen.

1.The pressure of strong subjective experience forces those concerned to twist the scriptures into the mould of their experience pattern (which has often been pre-suggested by neo-pentecostal speakers and writers). They theologise from their experience into the Bible.
2.Those who enjoy a spiritual reawakening then directly or indirectly call on other Christians to enjoy the same experience pattern. This is improper in itself. But worse, they do it from the scriptures, which means that the exhortation comes with all the force of the word of God on our conscience.

However, the call to have the baptism (understood as subsequence-consequence) is not the word of God because neither the Lord nor the apostles call on us to have such an experience. We can only ascribe good motives to those who thus exhort us. But we say to them: don’t impose your experience pattern on us and don’t do it from the scriptures (for it isn’t there) in the name of the Lord.

We believe the neo-pentecostal must not only search his conscience, he must also use the scriptures with infinite care. If he fails to do this, despite the excellence of his motives, he will become a false prophet since he calls people to fulfil something as the will of God on which the word of God is silent.

We, the authors, wish to make it clear that we are not opposed to tongues speaking provided there is no coercion to non-tongues speakers and that the activity is kept within the restrictions set out in 1 Corinthians 14. Nor do we discount the possibility of miracles of healing for this age. We do in fact welcome the gifts and fellowship of neo-pentecostals in our churches. We see one thing as the great obstacle to fellowship of this kind. That obstacle is the doctrine of subsequence-consequence, the view that the scriptures teach the neo-pentecostal baptism in the Spirit. We believe that this doctrine is in fact a new legalism: that it is Spirit expelling. Equally serious, it divided the brethren, it classified brothers according to whether or not they have enjoyed this experience. Experience, not the death of Jesus, has for them become the basis of fellowship. We are not optimistic about the effects of the movement while the alleged baptism remains one of its central planks. Remove this and we can see no difficulty about deep fellowship in evangelism and edification.

The challenge to conservatism

It must not be thought that we uncritically endorse traditional conservative evangelicalism. We rejoice in the great insights of the classical reformers. We affirm that there are many splendid congregations and outstanding individual Christians within this venerable tradition.

Nevertheless we must admit that many churches in the historic Protestant denominations are cold and lifeless. The church members frequently appear ultra-conservative, being unprepared to consider even the most moderate revisions of the liturgy. Worse, they appear to have no concern for those outside the church, or even the young within the church if they happen to have long hair.

‘Church’ takes on the appearance of a monotonous grind. The members seem to be unable to enter into any meaningful relationship with one another, scarcely therefore with people outside the church. Sharing, fellowship, caring, mutual ministry, exercise of gifts—all these are for many, it seems, meaningless categories.

By contrast the neo-pentecostal meeting is frequently a joyful occasion with lively music and a sincere sense of love and sharing between the members. Many find the neo-pentecostal meeting infinitely to be preferred because of factors like these.

It would not be surprising if many attach themselves to such meetings not because of neo-pentecostal doctrine, but because of the nature of the meetings.

Neo-pentecostalism is a movement of religious enthusiasm. It will reject the cold and formal and create new patterns of its own which express spiritual zeal and enthusiasm. Again, it would not be surprising if the experience of the baptism many claim to have is in fact an expression of the joy of free fellowship and sharing in a warmly emotional situation.

Many orthodox churches could benefit from an injection of enthusiasm and warmth.

What is God teaching us in the orthodox churches through this outbreak of religious enthusiasm in our midst? We make five suggestions:

1.The Holy Spirit has been, up to a point, the neglected person of the Godhead. Christians need to study the teaching of scripture about him. Preachers and Bible teachers should devote more time to teaching about his work in our lives. Nevertheless the Holy Spirit’s role is to glorify Jesus, not himself. Any study of the person and work of the Holy Spirit must be in relation to the person and work of Jesus.
2.Preaching frequently lacks balance. Some preaching is academic and lacks warm personal exhortation. Most preaching has little teaching content, consisting merely of slogans and pious appeals. The New Testament writing reflects the preaching of the early church. Here we find teaching and exhortations interwoven, with the exhortations based on the teaching. We need to recover this balance so that people are encouraged and exhorted on the basis of the truth of the gospel.
3.Christians are often uninformed about membership of the body and the fact that they belong to one another as brothers and sisters. Much time needs to be devoted to effective communication about this unique New Testament pattern. Until we learn to share with one another we will not be able to share with outsiders. We need to learn to give ourselves to others, to listen, to care and to share.
4.Christians often do not understand that the Spirit who converted them also baptised them into a body and imparted gifts to them for the growth of the body. The clergy need to give consistent teaching about this and also to create the situations where the exercise of gifts in the body is possible. We ought to come away from meetings convinced that we have met with the living God. The lively exercise of the gifts of the Spirit will be an evidence of his life in our churches.
5.Christians often do not understand the gospel, only rarely have they any idea how to go about sharing it with others, while few indeed have the ability to answer even the fundamental objections raised by unbelievers. The clergy must begin to train and equip church members, and stimulate the work of evangelism. There are specialists in evangelism and apologetics available to instruct people.

---

1.M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ (Fountain Trust, London, 1964), pp. 38-42.
2.J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongues Speaking, pp. 84-97.
3.M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ, pp. 39, 40; and J. Baker, Baptized in One Spirit, p. 9.
4.M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ, p. 49.
5.Quoted from A Discourse of the Subtill Practices of Devilles by Witches and Sorcerers, in K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1971). talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

‘Witness’ in the Book of Acts: Barnett & Jensen

2009-12-24T14:14:00.006+11:00

Acts 1:8 is the charter of the neo-pentecostal movement: ‘But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.’

Here is the source for the vital concept of ‘power for witness’. It is assumed that witness is the equivalent of evangelism and that the text is a promise of power for every Christian. Without this text the neo-pentecostal would find it hard to explain what the second coming of the Spirit is for.

However, it is clear that Acts 1:8 cannot be read in this way. For Luke the word ‘witness’ is very specific—it applies to those who see, handle and hear and who can therefore testify from first-hand experience. In Luke and Acts it is particularly applies to the small and unique band of disciples who could so testify to the risen Jesus. Definitely not every Christian was a witness, for not every Christian could say that he had seen the Lord. ‘Witness’ is not a synonym for ‘evangelist’, even though it is used that way in contemporary religious speech.

That this is so can be established by studying the contexts in Acts where the word ‘witness’ occurs. To take some examples:

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us… one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22).

but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead (Acts 10:40, 41).

But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people (Acts 13:30, 31).
The only exceptions to this are Paul and Stephen (Acts 22:15; 22:20). However it is highly significant that both these men had special encounters with the risen Jesus, and so although ‘born out of due time’ could take their place as authentic witnesses.

H. Strathmann observes of the concept of witness in Acts:

Nor are these witnesses in general. They are those who are qualified to be witnesses because they themselves lived through the events. They are indeed specifically called to be such (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8, 22-26). They were given the necessary equipment for their task (Luke 24:48; Acts 5:32)… This concept coincided with that of apostle in the narrower sense, and, unless it undergoes reconstruction, it is equally bound to disappear as historical development proceeds…
After quoting from Acts 1:8, he goes on:

The primary thought is that they can and will proclaim from first-hand knowledge the story of Jesus (1:22, 10:39)… It is apparent that this condition can be met only by a select circle whose members had the honour of personal encounter with the risen Lord (10:41, 1:22).1
It follows that the words of Acts 1:8 are words of promise to a group of unique persons, to perform a unique activity, and can in no way be construed as a promise to Christians as a whole. It is therefore more improper, since not true, to assure Christians that they will be supplied with power to evangelise on the basis of this text. Yet is there any other text which will function to provide the neo-pentecostal with the rationale for his experiences?

---

1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1967), Vol. IV, pp. 492, 493. We differ from Strathmann in the discussion of Paul and Stephen, but this has no bearing on the main issue of Acts 1:8. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:9-20 and Speaking in Tongues: Barnett & Jensen

2009-12-23T20:45:00.008+11:00

This is the only passage in which Jesus is reported as having mentioned glossolalia. In verse 17 and 18 he predicts that:

Signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.
However the manuscript and other difficulties that surround this passage force most Biblical scholars to the opinion that Jesus did not say this, or at least that it is improbable in the extreme that he did.1

Some neo-pentecostal literature uses this verse in connection with tongues speaking, however,2 and without apology, so it is necessary to set out the reasons why the verses are regarded as non-authentic. Basically these are:

(a) After verse 8, at least four different suggested endings are found in early manuscripts. The verses numbered 9-20 and used by the Authorized Version as part of the text (though not by the RSV, NEB, or TEV) are only one of a number of possibilities.

(b) The variety of possible endings suggests that the gospel ended at verse 8, which is rather abrupt, and that later editors compiled various pieces of material to round it off.

(c) Verse 9 to 20 are written in Greek uncharacteristic of Mark’s style.

(d) Although a majority of manuscripts have the verses, several good and ancient manuscripts do not. In this branch of study it is not the number of witnesses that matter, but their age and independence from one another. By these tests, their absence is most significant.

(e) A number of important ancient writers either did not know or rejected these verses. Eusebius and Jerome, for example, reported their absence from almost all the Greek manuscripts known to them.
This adds up to a well-nigh unassailable case for rejection. However, even if they were found to be authentic, it ought to be noted (as does Schep3) that they do not support a neo-pentecostal position, since the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. Furthermore the passage promises rather more than is wanted: note the handling of snakes. On this point Harper is silent.4

---

1. So, for example, commentaries by C. E. B. Cranfield (p. 470 f.) and R. A. Cole (p. 257 f.); note also B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964, p. 226 f.); J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongues Speaking (p. 99).
2. E.g., M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ, pp. 33, 37.
3. Schep, op. cit., p. 99.
4. M. Harper, As at the Beginning (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1971), p. 103. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in Tongues: Barnett & Jensen

2009-12-22T17:20:00.007+11:00

Speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as a sign

The fact that on three occasions in the book of Acts (2:4, Jerusalem; 10:44-46, Caesarea; and 19:6, Ephesus) the reception of the Holy Spirit was marked by men speaking in tongues has been adduced by some as evidence that such speech is the sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Some suggest that the Spirit-baptized believer should speak in tongues, and if he does not then there is some prejudice or lack of faith in him.

Thus the position appears to be that some neo-pentecostals claim on the basis of the Acts that speaking in tongues is the usual sign that a person has received a ‘subsequent’ baptism in the Spirit.1

However, certain points need to be raised about this teaching.

First, glossolalia did accompany the baptism of the Holy Spirit on several occasions, but this was in the context of men’s first commitment to the Lord Christ.

Second, it is possible to suggest quite cogent reasons for the gift of tongues being given on the occasions when it is mentioned in the Acts. Outward evidence of the Spirit’s coming was very appropriate on each occasion—for example, note the crucial nature of the events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius. The Jewish church had to be told thus that God had received the Gentiles; the Ephesians’ ‘false start’ made it important for them and for Paul to be assured that the Spirit had come.2

Third, historical events are not commands. That men spoke in tongues on three occasions does not amount to a command or a promise. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever command or promise glossolalia.

Fourth, the phenomenon of tongues occurs in other religions and even in non-religious circumstances, showing that it cannot be an infallible sign, if sign it is, of the lordship of Christ or the coming of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, owing to the possibility of self-deception in the area of tongues, interpretation and prophecy, we must be careful before presuming that use of it is evidence of Christianity, let alone a special baptism of the Spirit not commanded in scripture.

Tongues as a gift

1 Corinthians 12-14 contains the New Testament’s only discussion of this subject. It is possible to take various statements by Paul in isolation and build them into a case for glossolalia being normative Christian experience. For instance 14:5, ‘Not I want you all to speak in tongues…’; 14:18, ‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all…’; 14:22, ‘Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers…’; 14:39, ‘…do not forbid speaking in tongues…’

However, this is not fair to Paul’s argument, for the following reasons.

First, in the case of each quotation mentioned above an important modification follows or precedes. This cannot be ignored. Also, it is of more than passing interest to note that when Paul makes what appears to be his strongest statement, ‘Now I want you all to speak in tongues…’ (14:5), it is paralleled in 1 Corinthians 7:7 where, speaking of marriage, he says, ‘I wish that all were as I myself am…’, that is to say, unmarried. Now in 1 Corinthians 7 he obviously does not mean that we wishes all in fact to be single, for not all have that gift as he admits. A man cannot exercise a gift he does not have, and this applies to tongues. It is quite clear that only some Christians have the gift of glossolalia. So in 12:27-31 Paul asks, ‘Are all apostles? Are all prophets? … Do all speak with tongues?’ Here the Greek construction indicates without doubt that the answer ‘no’ is expected. It follows that we cannot demand that other Christians have this gift.

Second, Paul’s discussion taken as a whole leads to a minimal assessment of glossolalia. Tongues are mentioned last in the three lists of Chapter 12.3 The gift does not edify the gathered members (14:6-11), whereas prophecy edifies, exhorts, and consoles (14:3-6). Tongues do not edify the understanding of the speaker: therefore he should pray for the ability to understand what he speaks (14:13-15). Tongues speaking damns the unconverted in church, whereas prophecy converts him (14:20-25). Thus one cannot lovingly speak in tongues without interpretation.

Third, when Paul allows tongues, it is within strict limits. Meetings are not to be tongues dominated; two or three at most, and then only if interpretation is supplied so that it is edifying (14:27, 28). Further, glossolalia must be orderly and in turn (14:27, 40). The total effect of chapters 12-14 is not to condemn but to discourage.

Actually, the possession of gifts is not a matter for praise or blame (1 Cor. 4:7). Nor is it a guarantee of spirituality; the Corinthians were jealous and strife-ridden, arrogant, tolerant or immorality, litigious, insensitive to the weak, compromising with idolatry, self-assertive and unbelieving.

The neo-pentecostals will be quick to agree with this. They will point out that the baptism in the Holy Spirit leads to power for witness and service or other Christians, not sanctification. But by dividing evangelism and ministry from our sanctification they have divided the work of the Holy Spirit and gone contrary to the New Testament message:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16).

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35).
The Spirit’s work in sanctification gives power for evangelism and the service of the body of Christ. The use of gifts is the vital thing. Gifts are merely tools at the disposal of love, and are quite useless (and worse) without love (1 Cor. 13). This too provides the criteria by which to judge the usefulness of a gift—does it edify the brethren?

When all this is said we would like to make clear that we agree that this is a gift God can still give his people. We are told that great joy and peace flow from the experience, and again we rejoice that our brethren have been blessed by God.

Further, we wish to say that there is no room for an arrogant faith which coldly excludes those Christians who are of a different temperament, or who have received different gifts from the Lord. We rejoice to see gifted people as an evidence of God’s hand at work.

However, a problem arises with those Christians who seek to make their experience of tongues a norm for others. This is contrary to Paul’s word in 1 Corinthians 12:30 and to the very nature of gifts, which are varied.

Private tongues speaking

Some believe that there is a vital form of glossolalia which is available (or necessary) to every believer and which provides a revolutionary spiritual liberty (perhaps referred to in 1 Cor. 14:2, 4a, 17). However, one must note that it cannot be an experience open to all in the light of 12:30, ‘Do all speak in tongues?’

Further, private tongues speaking is never held up for praise as a superior form of prayer. We are nowhere encouraged to practise it, and we must therefore conclude that it is not of great value. This is a fair assessment in view of the fact that glossolalia ‘in the spirit’ (14:2) is not ‘in the Holy Spirit’ but in the area of non-rational as opposed to the rational part of the personality (see 14:15). In the light of the New Testament emphasis on knowledge, it is no wonder that Paul commands the tongues speaker to seek understanding (14:15).

‘He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself’ (1 Cor.14:4a) is often quoted in praise of private tongues speaking. It is to be noted that the tongues speaker is instructed to pray for the power to understand (14:13) so that in singing and praying he may comprehend what he says. How can a person be edified if he doesn’t understand what he is saying? Thus we see an apparent contradiction between Paul’s sentiments in 1 Corinthians 14:4a and 14:13-15. But is this really the case? When we return to 14:4a we notice that it is one part of a verse which is being unfavourably compared with the other half:

He who speaks in a tongues edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
We conclude that in 1 Corinthians 14:4a Paul is speaking ironically. Thus his meaning is that the tongues speaker is locked up in his won world; he doesn’t edify the church; he doesn’t fulfil the idea of the previous chapter which is love. His gift terminates on himself; it is useless for the church. 1 Corinthians 14:4a is not therefore to be seen as a commendation of private tongues speaking; it merely puts tongues speaking in an unfavourable light next to prophecy.

It is of interest to note D. W. Burdick’s conclusion in Tongues—To Speak or Not to Speak? (Moody Press, Chicago, 1969): ‘But, if the previous suggested explanation of present-day tongues is reasonably accurate, the glossolalic experience in such instances is abnormal. It is a form of dissociation within the mentality of a person. It is in reality a separation which blocks off the rational function of the brain with the result that action is produced apart from rational control. Temporarily the tongues speaker has entered a pathological condition…’ (p. 84). Unrestrained non-rational religious activity is sub-Christian and apparently open to Satanic influence. It must be tested by allegiance to the lordship of Christ (12:3) and love (chapter 13).

---

1. So, e.g. Harper in Power for the Body of Christ, p. 33 f.
2. This is so, too, if the Samaritans spoke in tongues, as seems likely (Acts 8:16 f.).
3. Some have queried the relevance of the ‘tongues are last’ observation. The problem is resolved by the use of language in 12:28: ‘first… second… third…’; obviously a descending order is in mind. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.