continuationism

Reflections on Neo-Pentecostalism

0
3 years ago
by Jacob in , ,

I watched the first half of the film, “The Finger of God” last night with my friends and my wife at their home. It wasn’t anything new to me to see the sort of material and discussion within it. It’s by folks that I would describe as either “Neo-Pentecostal” or Pentecostal italicized, underlined, and with a few exclamation points (e.g. – Pentecostal!!!). The film asserts more than merely tongues and prophesy – which is enough to give some Reformed folks a grip to the chest – they go on to celebrate gold dust miraculously appearing during worship, manna appearing from thin are within (or on top of) a man’s Bible (at Revelation 2:17, where Jesus says he’ll give conquerors “hidden manna”), the appearance of precious stones and gems out of nothing within worship, and the miracle of gold teeth for bad dental problems. (The most humorous one that they showed was after a man was slain in the spirit, there appeared gold dust on his pants, right on top of his zipper. That’s right, we were all starring at gold dust, on his crotch. Quite awkward, which even the narrator chuckled at. It was supposed to symbolize fruitfulness in ministry.)

Quite often, in my experience, the opposition to these sort of miracles focuses on the eccentric behavior of the folks involved, the fact that these miracles aren’t mentioned in Scripture – and in fact, there are not any miracles for today. I can understand and appreciate many of these critiques, and yet at the same time there are things to commend about the faith some of these “neo-Pentecostals” have. What I’d like to list here are a few things I appreciate and am concerned by with this stuff, if for anything, just my own mind on the issue.

Good things:

  • The active, expectant desire to see God move. The folks who are interviewed in the films just simply expect God to move, because God has said he’s going to move. God’s promised to live among us by the Holy Spirit, and work signs and wonders for his kingdom, and these folks just take him at his word.
  • The intimacy with and reliance upon the Holy Spirit. I find it interesting that in many of the interviews and testimonies, people say something akin to, “we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:2). John Calvin is said to be the theologian of the Holy Spirit (by B.B. Warfield here), and yet I find a greater awareness of, desire for, and intimacy with the Holy Spirit amidst these folks more than I do, at times, within the Reformed Camp.
  • Desire for evangelism. In one section of the video, a guy just goes out into Yale’s campus and is walking up to folks and asking if they’d like to be healed. There are other parts where folks pray and then just go out and do the same sort of thing for “fun on a Friday night”. They’re obvious desire is to see God work and to see God save people. They’re boldness is very commendable, which leads to a forth commendation:
  • Simple, childlike faith. The running theme between these marks as I list them out is a simple faith. People simply trust God at his word. This gets them into trouble at times because they aren’t using the gift between their ears as well as they should, but their hearts love God, and they have a simple trust and reliance upon him. This, I feel, is quote contrary to the norm within Christian circles.

Concerns:

  • The centrality of the Gospel. What I find in the video and folks I’ve engaged with on these things is that the focus is not focused in on and transfixed with the Gospel. Much of the attention and talk is to how awesome the miracles are, how they’ve encouraged faith, and how they are the kingdom of God come. I’m fine with all of that (with a few qualifiers on what “the kingdom of God” is since I’m still not sure how they use the phrase). Occasionally, at least in the video, there will be mention of miracles showing how much God loves us and desires us to know him, and that God, not the miracles, are the focus and aim of miracles. Even this is not helpful because who “God” is, and what God is about is left undefined if the miracles are not explicitly talked about to show the power of God in the cross of Christ. I understand that people are praying in Jesus’ name, but so do loads of heretics who stand contrary to the Gospel. Note, I am not grouping these neo-Pentecostals and the heretics together. Take a look at Galatians 3. Here Paul starts by saying, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified” (v. 1). Notice, the “public portrayal” of Christ crucified was through preaching. He then goes on to say, ”Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’?” (v. 5,6). The faith that people respond to the Gospel with is by the work of the Holy Spirit, who also works miracles among them to point to the power of the Gospel. Faith’s purpose for existing is not to work miracles, but to trust in, and glorify the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. That’s why Paul caps this paragraph with pointing to the faith of Abraham. Just as signs and wonders existed to point to the work of Christ on the cross , so signs and wonders today exist to point to the finished work of Christ on the cross and his sovereign rule over the world so that sinners repent and believe the Gospel.
  • Bad use of scripture. In the video, people used a few scriptures incorrectly to justify the validy of these “peculiar miracles”. One that comes to mind is, ““Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father” (John 14:12). The reasoning is this: Jesus did great miracles, and so can we; in fact, we’ll do miracles not recorded in Scripture because we’re promised to do “great works” than Jesus. I find this troubling for many reasons, the least of which is that I don’t see any reason to think we’ll do miracles not evidenced in Scripture. The miracles in Scripture are given reason and purpose in how the Scriptures connect their meaning to the cross of Christ. Non-scripture recorded miracles are always left to an individual’s interpretation, which is subject to question to say the least. (That said, many people generally shrug they’re shoulders on the “why?” question, which is why I don’t press to hard on this point.) The “great works” that Jesus talks about is the extending of his works beyond the region he’s ministered in. Not that the works are “better” than Jesus’, but that they extend further than the Israel/Palestine region of the world. In Colossians 1:24 Paul says that he is “filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions…for the church”. What Paul means here is clarified in Philippians 2:30 where he says that Epaphroditus “filled up what was lacking” in the people’s service to Paul – which was merely to deliver the goods. To my mind, “greater works” and “filling what is lacking” are similar concepts when discussing the work of Christ – the only way we can do “greater” and fill what is “lacking” is to deliver the goods in a larger expanse than Christ ministered in.
  • Another poor reading of Scripture is Paul’s discussion of the “foolish in the world to shame the wise” in 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16. Some folks in the video used this section to say something akin to, “Look, these miracles are rather foolish to the world, but God says he uses foolish things for his kingdom.” The problem here is that “the foolish things” of the world is “Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). That which is foolish to the world is the Gospel, not miracles (unless you’re Hume…). You see a worldly, unregenerate people in John 6 who are quite ready for some miraculous stuff to happen, and yet when the Gospel is preached by Jesus himself, not only the crowd, but disciples jump ship. Miracles are weird and mysterious, and contrary to the western mind, but they’re not uncomfortable or foolish to a dying world, but the Gospel is. I merely mention this to say that it’s a wrong use of these “foolish things” scriptures to validate miraculous things. And I want to be clear here that I haven’t said there’s malicious intent in those who make these mistakes, nor claimed that they aren’t Christians for what they’ve taught.
  • Poor discernment. This piggy backs on the last one, being similar, but different. The existence of miracles is not unique to Christians. It may seem like a shocker to think this, but a simple evaluation of the world around us, not to mention Scripture, shows plenty of pagan people pulling miraculous things out of thin air. What I find concerning in these folks is that a miracle automatically equals the power of Jesus Christ. Christ teaches us that, “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’”(Matthew 7:22,23). This is a sobering verse to me, and one that for me, causes me to shutter before I start applying it to others. Many will have done miraculous things and still be reckoned “workers of lawlessness.” I do wonder at times though, how many of the “signs and wonders” movement have given adequate consideration and mediation on these verses in discerning the miracles they witness or work. I would aim this more particularly at those miracles that do not occur in the Bible (i.e. gems, gold dust, “hidden manna”, etc.). Just as much as Satan can appear as an angel of light, he can surely work miracles. As I mentioned before, the aim of miracles is the Gospel; to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) is to see if things point and uphold the Gospel, if they don’t, they’re demonic.
  • Anti-intellectualism. One of the phrases that come up on these issues is, “Don’t put God in a box.” Part of me understands this sentiment – God isn’t limited to our understanding of the world. However, what this has the current of is a cut against hard thinking on these issues. As much as miracles are a gift from God, the mind is supposed to be trained, renewed, and controlled to think God’s thoughts after him (Ephesians 4:23, Romans 12:2, Hebrews 5:14). It is through constant training of the mind in the Scriptures that one learns to be self-controlled in their evaluation of the world (Galatians 5:23, James 3:17). I think the issue of poor discernment and anti-intellectualism go hand in hand here, so I don’t feel the need to say too much. I will say that one of the most open Calvinists to the strange works of the spirit was the most intellectually gifted Calvinist, possible who’s ever lived (except Jesus, Paul, etc.), Jonathan Edwards. The questions about the validity of the miracles are not putting God in a box, but rather, asking the question, “God’s defined himself in Scripture, so do these things line up with what we know about God?” Again, what we know about God is that the Father seeks to glorify the Son in the Gospel, so if a miracle isn’t shown to aim in that direction – at the repentance of sinners and faith in the one mediator, Jesus Christ – then it’s not intellectualism to call a miracle false because it doesn’t align without understanding of Scripture, it’s spiritual maturity and discernment.
  • Miracles do not mean people are saved, or know God. This point has already been expounded upon in the heading of “Poor Discernment.” Since Satan can work miracles, and since people can perform miracles in the name of Jesus and still go to Hell, we should not get overly excited or obsessed with the most recent miracle. It is important to note that of all the things we learn from the end of 1 Corinthians 13, it is the fruit of the Spirit, namely love, that extends into eternity not miraculous events or gifts.

Conclusion

After watching the film I commented with Michelle that while there were some major issues with the centrality of the Gospel and biblical discernment, I was convicted of my own lack of desire for the miraculous work of God. I’m a continuationist amidst a sea of cessationist Reformed folks, which I know makes me stick out like Moby Dick to Captain Ahab. But it’s where I find Scripture to be most consistent. Unfortunately for me, my heart and desires aren’t as consistent with the clear teaching I see in Scripture as they should be. While I affirm and agree that the signs and wonders are for today, my affections are cold in this area, and I hardly have the faith that these brothers and sisters have in their expectation for God to move. While I’m left with sadness for the clarity of the Gospel for these folks, I’m more left desiring to repent for my own rebellion against God’s desire to bless me and his people by miraculous signs of Christ’s victory over sin and death. I do pray that the Lord will grow my faith to desire to see the Gospel pointed to by miraculous events so that Jesus Christ, not me, nor the event, receives all the glory that he deserves.

Reflections on 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

0
3 years ago
by Jacob in , , ,

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. ~ 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

I have from time to time been asked about the nature of the gift of tongues, whether they are natural languages to men, or if they should be legitimately taken as the “supernatural” tongues of angels. One of the main texts that I will point to when this comes up is 1 Corinthians 13:1, where Paul makes the statement about speaking in the “tongues of angels”. What I want to provide here a short run down of my typical argument, a short run through what I understand to be the cessationists argument, and then give some further thoughts I’ve had on this text and others related to it. I must admit at the forefront that I rely heavily on D.A. Carson’s work, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. My honest opinion about the whole subject of the “charismatic gifts” is that if someone has anything of value to contribute to the discussion and has not read this book, the value of what they contribute is greatly diminished.

My typical reading of 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 would be as follows in relation to the spiritual gifts: While the central point of Paul’s passage here is to point out the necessity of love in the Christian live, nonetheless, Paul here uses examples in every other case he discusses the need for love in that we can do. Because each other case mentioned (prophetic powers, understanding all mysteries, all faith, giving away all one has) it would seem rather strange to section out the more “extreme” of them, like tongues of angels, and say that this was the only one that he was simply being hyperbolic about. Thus, since the gift of the tongues of angels is set amidst other gifts or actions that we can do, we must deduce that this is something that we can do (through gifting, or “grace-gift” – the literal of “charismatic”).

I must admit at the front here that I am slightly weak on a consistent cessationist argument about this text. What I gather about it from various conversations with people is that the substance of their argument lies in the thrust that this whole section (1 Cor. 13:1-3) is hyperbolic in some important sense. That is, what Paul seeks to distinguish here is not that people actually can speak in the tongues of angels, or that they can “understand all mysteries” or that they can “have all faith so as to remove mountains”. Rather, he is exaggerating gifts to an unreal nature to make his point about love, not remark about the abilities one can have through gifting. These gifts, then, are thus not real attainments, but merely Paul pressing the point, pushing the dust out of the way by a broad push of the hand, so to speak, so as to see the underlying point clearly.

Now for my further reflections on the text. I find, in the end, that what Paul is doing here with these three verses is not a hyperbolic string of statements, but rather a rhetorical exaggeration to draw out the centrality of heart motivation in the gifts. It is interesting that in this section Paul takes on the personal pronoun (“If I speak in tongues…I am a noisy gong). Thus, what is on focus here is himself as he is at the core, not the gifts. So it would be unnatural to the text to require this whole section to be a literal reading of the gifts one can perform since the focus is himself, not the gifts. This is strengthened by the fact that should he lack love in his gifts, the gifts aren’t nullified, he is: “[If I] have not love, I am a noisy gong.” He doesn’t say, “My gift is nullified”, he says, “I am nullified” without love. This is interesting to me because it cuts both ways down the charismatic/cessationist discussion on this passage. As a rebuke to me, Paul’s not even really commenting on the gifts, but on the nature of our heart for holiness!

One’s desire for holiness and love for Jesus Christ and his people is the essence that fills any gift they possess. We should take this passage, v. 1-3 as implicating all gifts because Paul draws in as his last three examples (faith, philanthropy, and martyrdom) things that are “natural” gifts. He gives a partial list in 12:7-11, but other lists are given else where in Scripture that we should keep in mind here. The essence of all spiritual gifts is love – not experience, not growth in knowledge, not growth in service, but love. Heaven, as Jonathan Edwards reminds us, is a world of love, and thus anything we do here is an anticipatory echo of that world in which we will some day reside.

The passage itself, v. 1-3, as I said, should be read as a rhetorical exaggeration to the point of emphasizing love, not necessarily, one way or the other, a commend on which gifts one can do. As Carson says here, “Paul’s point is relatively simple. No matter how exalted my gift of tongues, without love I am nothing more than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (Carson, Showing The Spirit, 59). Thus, I think the passage should start out here by being read as follows: “If I speak in the tongues of men, and even of angels, but have not love…If I have prophetic powers, and even understand all mysteries…if I have all faith, even so as to remove mountains…If I give away all I have, and even if I deliver…” I think you can see what I’m talking about here. Thus, because the emphasis is an exaggerated rhetorical move to expose the need for love, the point, as I said before, is to emphasize the importance of personal holiness to have love as the root to our gifting rather than a discussion on the gifts themselves (though they are certainly implicit in each other).

A few final thoughts here are in order. On the issue of the tongues of angels, Carson does say that there is evidence to say that they could have been understood to actually be angelic languages in view here from some Jewish literature at the time. His footnote on this issue reads as follows, “Some cite Rev. 14:2-3; H.L. Strack and P. Billerback, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Midrasch, 5 vols. (Munichen: Beck, 1922-28) 3:449-50; Ascension of Isaiah 7:15-37. But the most impressive parallel is Testament of Job 48-50 (in the link, it’s 11:21-29), where Job’s daughters speak in the dialects of various classes of angels” (Carson, 58). I thought it was interesting to note, and potentially giving some weight to my former point on this text. I’m going to try and do some of that source reading he’s suggesting here. I’ll post what I find, which may or may not be of interest to some. I also find it interesting to read Calvin and Hodge on this matter. Calvin says that the “tongues of angels” is the whole host of languages of mankind – so as to say that such a thing would be angelic in mental ability (sort of). Hodge comments that this is actually the angelic languages, with a leaning towards saying it’s a rhetorical exaggeration. I find it interesting that neither outright deny the ability of angels to have their own languages, or that we could know them.

As a final note, here are Carson’s final reflections on this text (and one of the reasons I appreciate his work so much):

If Paul were addressing the modern church, perhaps he would extrapolate further: You Christians who prove your spirituality by the amount of theological information you can cram into your heads, I tell you that such knowledge by itself proves nothing. An you who affirm the Spirit’s presence in your meetings because there is a certain style of worship (whether formal and stately or exuberant and spontaneous), if your worship patterns are not expressions of love, you are spiritually bankrupt. You who insist that speaking in tongues attests to a second work of the Spirit, a baptism of the Spirit, I tell you that if love does not characterize your life, there is not evidence of even a first work of the Spirit. ~ Carson, 61

Anyhow, it may be a bit, but I do plan on getting on here some thoughts on the end of 1 Corinthians 13 in relation to the spiritual gifts.

Yours,
~Jacob

Tongues and Prophesy – Part II

0
3 years ago
by Jacob in , , , ,

I posted recently on a try at interpreting 1 Corinthians 14:20-25. This was a part of trying to work out how to understand 1 Corinthians 12-14, and the Biblical teaching on the gifts of tongues, prophesy, healing, etc. So, in an attempt to get a better handle on the text, I read Showing The Spirit by D.A. Carson last week, which is a “Theological exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14” (subtitle) – precisely what I’m thinking through. So when I came to the passage that I had taken a stab at a few weeks ago in Carson’s book, I was a little surprised when he said the same basic thing that I had gathered from the text. So, in an attempt to further this discussion, and possibly clarify where I might not have been clear, I’m going to quote Carson’s main argument on this text:

In the context of Isaiah 28:9-13, the “strange tongues” of foreigners (i.e., the Assyrian troops) represent God’s visitation in judgment on his people. They had refused to listen to him and repent when he spoke clearly; now he will visit them through invading hordes by whom he will “speak” in a language (Assyrian) whose content they will not understand, even though in it they will “hear” a message of judgment. The “strange tongues” therefore do not convey content to the unbelieving Israelites, but they do serve as a sign – a negative sign, a sign of judgment. This is the example of which Paul appeals. In the Law it is written (and by “Law” here he means what we would call the Old Testament Scriptures) that at a crucial juncture in the history of the covenant community, God “spoke” to his people through “strange tongues.” But when he did so, he was speaking a message of judgment, the lips of the foreigners to the unbelievers, at least here it is a sign of his judgment upon them.
It may have been that some believers in Corinth were justifying their undiscriminating overemphasis on tongues by extolling their virtue as a witness to unbelievers, as a sign to them of God’s powerful presence in the life of the church. Paul replies, in effect: Yes, you are partly right. Tongues are a sign for unbelievers. But if you examine how the Scriptures describe the relationship between the unbelievers and “strange” (i.e. foreign and unknown) tongues, you discover that they constitutes a negative sign. They are a sign of god’s commitment to bring judgment. But when the same verse (v. 22), Paul says that prophesy is a sign for believers, does he not mean this in a positive sense? (Showing the Spirit, 113-114)

He goes on to say that signs can be both positive and negative at the same time (i.e. one thinks of the plagues of Israel against Egypt). He goes on to say:

If this approach to the sign value of tongues is taken in verse 22, then there is no longer any difficulty in understanding verse 23. When outsiders and unbelievers come into a Christian assembly where everyone is speaking in tongues, it will not be surprising if they simply conclude that the believers are possessed (which is probably what the word mainesthe means)…It appears, then, that these tongues to not have exactly the same function as those in Acts 2… If an unbeliever enters the congregation when everyone is prophesying, instead of speaking in tongues, then communication takes place. It may even be communication designed by the Spirit to expose the secrets of his own heart and thereby convict him of sin, bringing him to repentance and worship (14:24-25). (Showing the Spirit, 115-116)

Anyhow, thought I’d share this since I’d had a few questions from my friends on that last blog. I think any serious interpretation of this passage in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25 will have to appropriately understand and accommodate for Isaiah 28:11,12 in 1 Corinthians 14:21. I hope this helps. For any that are curious however, I am meeting with one of my pastors to talk through these issues with him.

The Nature of the Gift of Prophesy

0
3 years ago
by Jacob in ,

I have recently struggled with the gift or prophesy in the New Testament. It is not so much that I struggle affirming its use for the church today, I have struggled with the nature of its revelation. I am a continuationist when it comes to understanding the gift, and continue to be more convinced as time goes on of this interpretation. So my dilemma has been this: What is the nature of the revelation within a prophetic word that is different than the nature of the revelation within the inspiration of Scripture? My deep concern has been over the language we use about the gift without clarifying how revelation in the gift of prophesy is different than the revelation in Scripture.

So, I was describing this wrestling to a friend last night over dinner. Thankfully, God has made all my friends around me smarter, wittier, and more godly than me – especially better looking than me as well – and he had the following observation about this question: The difference between the revelation within Canon and the revelation within the gift of prophesy is over the revealing of new things about God. In the revelation that constituted Scripture, its nature was to unveil and disclose God more clearly – to teach new things about God. Hence, this is why Paul makes the exclusive claim about Scripture that it is, “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16,17). Scripture is our authority. The nature of the revelation within the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit is an unveiling of God, and thereby an authoritative rule on our lives. But it is closed, complete, without error in its authorship, and binding upon God’s covenant people.

The gift of prophesy, however, is not an unveiling of God’s nature, or his purposed and plans. The nature of the revelation within the gift of prophesy is a Spirit lead word of encouragement for the believer to strengthen faith in the Gospel. The revelation within it is aimed, not at being authoritative or unveiling new things about God, but being the moving of the Spirit within the community of faith to persevere, encourage, strengthen, edify, and draw attention to Jesus Christ. This is why Paul says that “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (1 Corinthians 14:3). To me, this is the only way of reconciling the finished authority of the revelation within Scripture and Paul’s explicit teaching that prophesy is revelation (1 Cor. 12:6, 25-26) in the confines that there is no indication that the gift will cease prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

So, in short, the revelation of Scripture is the unveiling of God’s nature and purposes; the revelation of the gift of prophesy is the prompting of the Spirit for the encouragement of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, we find that the gift of prophesy is always subject to the authority of Scripture – for how do we know what is true faith, what is its true object, and what are its true movements unless we judge it by its authoritative rule and source?

I have further thoughts on this that I will be posting soon, but I wanted to keep this short.

Tongues and Prophesy in 1 Cor. 14:20-25

0
4 years ago
by Jacob in , ,

I have to say that my understanding of the spiritual gifts is very weak, but bellow is a meditation I’ve been doing today on the nature of the gift of tongues. I’m working through this, so it’s not likely to be exactly right, but I pray for mercy for illumination and understanding on this issue.

20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. ~ 1 Corinthians 14:20:25

I’m beginning to see the theology of tongues and prophesy in relation to the Gospel age (or rather, the fully unveiled gospel age we presently live in). Paul quotes Isaiah 28 and Deuteronomy 28 saying that tongues that are not understood are a judgment upon unbelief. Where there is a people who refuse the Lord, a judgment from God may be to send foreign tongues upon them to cause confusion – similar to the sense of 1 Kings 22:22.

Thus, the tongues Paul speaks of are a sign of judgment upon unbelievers – and in this they are given a sign. Prophesy on the other hand works differently. Because it is a public display of the judgment of God against sin in Christ for mercy, it is particularly focused on those who taste of mercy most acutely: believers. This is why prophesy is a sign to believers. The “sign” here is not a limiting factor, but a distinguishing factor between judgment and mercy, unbeliever and believer, natural and spiritual. The “sign” factor points to this fundamental distinction in how it highlights the workings of mercy and judgment upon the two groups.

So the thrust of the passage is this: in the public setting, tongues that are not interpreted will be an evidence of God’s judgment upon the unbeliever to their ruin and destruction. However, prophecy functions to deal with the reality of sin and redemption. As God’s covenant people, we understand our sin, and love the Savior in light of the cross. Prophesy is the gracious leading and applying of Scripture by the Holy Spirit for conviction and encouragement in the Gospel. It is a sign focused on those who have received mercy. But if an unbeliever is in the group, it is a sign with the intention to expose their own depravity before God and need of a savior (v. 24-25). They need tob e a part of the people of mercy; they need God for them, not against them. Hence, with prophesy as a sign to believers, this means it is a sign of God’s gracious mercy to believers and all of his covenant people of his dealing of sin in the cross of Christ- a sign of invitation to unbelievers.

This then is why Paul calls them to mature thinking – mature thinking adjusts reality to the view God has – the Gospel of Christ for sinner’s redemption. This is why then Paul calls to maturity: the Gospel is always central, even in prophesy, which, if it is by/of the Spirit, it will inherently be focused on the Gospel because even unbelievers will be converted to the glory of God among the congregation. Hence, tongues is more focused on the up building of the individual (v. 14, 15), where as prophesy is more focused on the up building of the congregation – and in contrast to our modern era, Paul says the up building of the congregation is more important. So it seems to me that the work of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of Christ in this passage is to strengthen believers in their own devotion to Christ, potentially through the gift of tongues; and to strengthen the congregation through gifts of prophesy to encourage them in the faith, and bring people into that faith. It seems that the Holy Spirit is working to do what Christ commissioned it for: building up the people of Christ. Hence, the wisdom Paul calls us to in this passage is to value each other as better than ourselves, and to seek in all things to uplift the church by the Gospel of Christ.

Thoughts on the “filling of the Spirit”

0
4 years ago
by Jacob in , ,

I struggle to understand what people mean when they say “the filling if the Spirit” or “the Holy Spirit is moving here”. I am a continuationist, and firmly believe that the Spirit is presently working in the redeemed of Christ with gifts for the life of discipleship after the Master. So categorically I affirm that the Spirit works, fills, empowers, gifts, etc. in many various ways. However, I am continually perplexed by what is exactly being communicated in the statement, “filled by the Spirit” – it’s an ambiguous phrase to me, as well as my wife. That said, I feel that the confusion is more on my side than on those who use it, and so I’m seeking to work through what it means. Below are some reflective thoughts on seeking to move myself into an understanding of what is being communicated. Not all the Scriptures in mind for these points are quoted, but there were many in mind as I worked through this.

  • The Third Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not just Spirit, it is itself potently holy; it is holy, promotes holiness, it creates holiness. It is itself the strength of God for the name of God. (Rf. Rom. 1:4, 8:13, Eph. 1:13,14, Rev. 1:4,12,16, 20 – where the perfect (7) Spirit is shown to be the foundation of the church, held in the hand of power of Christ).
  • This is why, fundamentally, on Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit is mainly, and chiefly expressed in the preaching of the Gospel. (Rf. Acts 2:4 runs immediately into v. 14 – 5-13 is a parenthesis of sorts.)
  • A foundational action of the Spirit is birthing believers into a clear, permanent, and pervasive distinction with the world. (Rf. John 3:3, Titus 2:4-8, Jer. 31:33 with Ezek. 11:19-20, Phil. 2:13,1 Cor. 2:12,14-15.)
  • We are all born into a state of being ruled by the spirit of “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2).
    • One of the things that comes out of this powerful phrase Paul uses is that air itself is permeating. There is something that we are born into, something that engulfs us, that in some serious sense, sustains us, nourishes us, and replenishes us.
    • Air, to our physical bodies, must be present for us to live. Air, in a spiritual sense, is ruled by spiritual forces, and thereby derives what sort of nurturing it shall have.
    • We know from this verse and Eph. 6:12 that the spirit of the power of the air is at war with God. The air of this world is being ruled by Satan; those of this world belong to him, they breath his air, they follow his rule.
    • For the Holy Spirit to come and “fill us” is in some very real sense capturing the positive contrary of Eph. 2:2 – the Spirit of the power of God filling us.
    • There are fundamentally two kingdoms in the universe, that of light, and that of darkness; flesh and spirit, life and death, God and Satan, holy and sin. The Holy Spirit “filling believers” is what God does to those who belong to them, weaning them off the World by the superior power of his presence within them.
    • So, more fully, we can say that the Spirit fills believers to their promotion in holiness and sanctification, which is for the believer what the strength of God does. Jesus perfected us, and we are sanctified in him (Heb. 9:28), and therefore, the Spirit is working in us, being our air of his power, so to cause us to change to a different rule.
    • We experience living under the rule of the power of the air felt natural and normal before the illumination to saving faith in a believer – it can also be said that the living in the Spirit is natural and normal (compared to fanciful flights of imaginative and preposterous stories). However, it can also be terribly uncomfortable, and uneasy seeing that we are corrupted in our nature to feel more at home with sin and wickedness than holiness and righteousness. The point here, however, is that spiritual existence is a “normal and natural” thing – it is the master you are under that determines how things are played out and to what end.
  • The experiential note of the “filling of the Holy Spirit” is, to some degree, that holy sense of the value of the cross, and the redemption purchased there in being presently, actively, and powerfully applied to our existence.
  • The “filling” is also that deep sense of the value of God in a new way. Phrases like “a fresh filling” are, for me, unhelpful at times. A renewed sense of the value, beauty, worth, and glory of God in some new understanding of him, or a deeper resolution and power for holy living to God are how we experience this renewed enlarged view.
  • Ergo:: The phrase “The Holy Spirit is here with us, doing X, moving Y, etc.” is a pastoral recognition of the Spirit doing this “filling” in a body of believers, not just for an individual.
  • The experiential side of this can be where Michelle and I struggle, as it seems. I think this should be, in part, buffered by personalities. Some people are extroversive than others. However, I think for us, the difference is that our hearts are not thrown into the adoration of God via the empowering of the Holy Spirit with the same affection, or with the same sensitivity as others may be experiencing. This is wrong, and we recognize it, and we seek to work through it by the Holy Spirit. I want to be more sensitive to the Spirit. This will come through a continual, steadfast existence before God in prayer and praise of his glory.
Go to Top