Faith – Page 8 – LOVE | ACCEPT

Wesley on the catholic Spirit

Wesley does not speak here about theological compromise. Instead, he demonstrates a rare ability to segregate the essential from nonessential elements in the Christian faith.

Every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true; (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it;) yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not… “To be ignorant of many things and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity.” This, therefore, he is sensible is his own case. He knows in the general, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particular he mistakes, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know…

Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his. He bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him whom he desires to unite in love that single question, “Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?”…

But what is properly implied in the question? … The first thing implied is this: Is they heart right with God?…Does the love of God constrain thee to serve Him with fear? … Is they heart right toward thy neighbor?… Do you show your love by your works?… Then, “thy heart is right, as my heart is with they heart.”

“If it be, give me thy hand.” I do not mean, “Be of my opinion.” You need not: I do not expect or desire it. Neither do I mean, “I will be of your opinion.” I cannot; It does no depend on my choice; I can no more think, than I can see or hear, as I will. Keep you your opinion, I mine; and that as steadily as ever. You need not even endeavour to come over to me, or bring me over to you. I do not desire you to dispute these points, or to hear or speak one word concerning them. Let all opinions alone on one side and the other: Only “give me thine hand.”

I do not mean, “Embrace my modes of worship;” or, “I will embrace yours.” This also is a thing which does no depend either on your choice or mine. We must both act as each is fully persuaded in his own mind. Hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable government to be Scriptural and Apostolic. If you thing the Presbyterians or Independents are better, think so still, and act accordingly. I believe infants ought to be baptized; and that this may be done either by dipping or sprinkling. If you are otherwise persuaded, be so still, and follow you own persuasion. It appears to me, that the forms of prayer are of excellent use, particularly in the great congregation. If you judge extemporary prayer to be of more use, act suitably to your own judgment. My sentiment, is that I ought not to forbid water, wherein persons may be baptized; and that I ought to eat bread and drink wine, as a memorial of my dying Master; however, if you are not convinced of this, act according to the light you have. I have not desire to dispute with you one moment upon any of the preceding heads. Let all these smaller points stand aside. Let them never come into light. If thin heart is as my heart, if thou lovest God and all mankind, I ask no more: “Give me thine hand” (Works, V, 494-499)

Perhaps we too can exercise some discernment and divide the essential from the non-essential, loving one another as the result.

The Mark of the Christian by Francis Schaeffer

Required Reading for Every Single Follower of Christ

Go to your library. Right now, this very moment. Scan the titles and covers. Do you find the book shown at the right? Look carefully as, at 59 pages, this slim volume could easily be hidden by larger, more ponderous volumes attempting to convey similar messages. Did you find a book by the same author entitled The Church at the End of the 20th Century? If the answer is no, you must obtain a copy of The Mark of the Christian as quickly as possible. Don’t tarry, for each moment the Body continues headlong into history without absorbing this message we move further away from one of the Lord’s most important messages,

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35

Love is to be our mark. Love within the Body is to be a light that illuminates the world showing that there is a different way, a better way. Each and every action that the world sees, both within and without of the Body, is to marked by this Love. Shaeffer turns our eyes toward the evangelistic purpose of this bond of love in John 17:20-21,

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”

And if our actions toward other Christians fall short of this ideal of love? Shaeffer indicates that we should interpret this as a dire warning; the world has every right to judge US as not being true Christians. We cannot expect the world to believe in the truth of the Lord Jesus if they do not see the mark, the distinctive imprint of oneness within the Body. Read this book. Monthly if necessary until your mark is so indelible that the world will not mistake it for anything else.

The Reformed Echo Chamber

This post at Arminian Perspectives takes on Tim Challies and his generally dismissive review of Roger Olson’s book Arminian Theology. The review follows the template established by other Calvinist reviewers, defaulting to the tired accusations of Pelagianism, etc. What is telling is that with the ability of nearly everyone in the age of the Internet to discover the facts about Arminian theology, the Calvinist accolytes continue to simply listen to one another, echoing the same incorrect notions, proof texts, and authorities back to the others in the chamber.

Reformed Jesus, Merely a Prop?

A key verse often cited as evidence of the Calvinist interpretation of the concept of election and predestination is the berakah in Ephesians 1:3-6. It reads like this:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For 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 through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will– to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

Given the supralapsarian metrics of this passage, as we align it with the the petals of the TULIP some questions arise. The notion of some being chosen (elected) before the creation of the world while others are simultaneously selected for reprobation via God’s sovereign decision forms the very center of Calvin’s theological framework. It is important to note that the order of the selection chooses from among humans who have yet to be stung by the poison of sin, since the Fall has yet to be authored by the Father. In other words, they are yet to become totally or even partially depraved when their unconditional election occurs.They are already Saints, consecrated and set apart according to Sproul (Ephesians, 24.) When the Lord is cruelly and viciously sacrificed on the tree, it is an already foregone conclusion that the expiation (atonement) will apply only to those selected pre-creation. It logically follows then that the eternal status of these blessed few does not require their assent, nor can it be denied except by the Sovereign who decided it.

Calvinist W.J. Seaton (The Five Points of Calvinism) comments on the limited application of the sacrifice of Christ.

Christ died positively and effectually to save a certain number of hell-deserving sinners on whom the Father had already set His free electing love.

Note again that these “hell-deserving sinners” were created by God for the express purpose of being such. Why then is the sacrifice of Jesus necessary? If the Elect are holy and blameless from and for all of eternity then, it stands to reason, the Fall was orchestrated simply to provide the means to condemn those not selected for sanctification. It becomes merely a symbolic act in the predestined history of the World, necessary to further the story for which the conclusion is already known. If the Elect are claimed holy and blameless, why does God allow them to be stained by sin (Rom 5:14)? Because sin is in the world (at His permission and only eternally affecting those who are elected to perdition), God demands propitiation. His Holiness requires that atonement comes only from an equally holy sacrifice. Thus, the Christ must be the sacrifice. But the righteousness that He imputes, (cf Rom 5:17) is it needed by those already considered from eternity past to be holy and blameless? Does this doctrine not belittle the cross?

Why then was the Cross necessary? To show His love to those he has already given His eternal promise to? To demonstrate His sovereignty or power to all the rest whom He has left powerless to affect their eternal condemnation in Hell? In light of the order of elements above, Jesus become just a prop in the play, not really necessary but used to further the plot. Or, as Robert Reymond suggests, God does not see the men He creates as men but as sinners because His decretal system is not sequential but, simultaneous. However this process is enumerated, does it not hold true that God creates humankind knowing that they are a) going to sin because he created them that way with the ability (will) to walk counter to His commands and b) that some of them are created specifically for the purpose of being destroyed?

There are so many questions…does Calvin offer any answers?

Jesus Mean and Wild by Mark Galli

God loves you and has a difficult plan for your life.

There’s a phrase almost guaranteed NOT to make an appearance at the next revival or evangelism event in your church. When introducing Jesus to others, we more often than not default to the meek and mild savior who rolls his eyes at our follies, who is our buddy when we want Him near and who conveniently walks the other way in situations where He is really not welcome. The attractive Jesus of the blue eyes and curly blond hair and piercing stare is the one who adorns our church walls and literature.

But what of the Jesus who makes a whip of cords to clear the temple, who expresses his anger and frustration at the blindness of his disciples, and who will leave us alone at just the wrong moment? What do we do with this Jesus, author Mark Galli asks in his superb book Jesus Mean and Wild. I’ve been wanting to read this book for about a year now and after finally sitting down for a couple of days to do so, I was not disappointed. Galli leads us to look at Jesus in a way different from how we usually encounter him, as the militant whose love for us sometimes takes the form of tough love. As he walks us through different passages in the Gospel of Mark, we run into a Jesus whose idea of comforting our wounds is to salt them – painful in the short term but healing in the long run.

The Jesus that we are reminded of in the pages of Galli’s book is a portrait that the modern Church often reads quickly past. This is the Jesus that loves us enough to speak harshly to us in order to encourage our repentance. He is the savior that is willing to heal but rebukes the receiver of the miracle as He pushes him away. The Rabbi we encounter is disrespectful of authority other than those truly devoted to the Father. In a reminder that is needed by the churches today that strive for relevance above all else, Jesus appears to us (Mark 8:31-33) as the ultimate measure of irrelevance. In a chapter that points out that following Jesus faithfully is far and beyond more important than being culturally relevant [that is also excerpted in Christianity Today July 2006], Galli offers a cutting warning to Church and pastors of vision.

Coming to the final chapters of the book makes you want to return to page one and soak in this portrait of Jesus all over again, slowly savoring the words and illustrations that help us to see a more well rounded Jesus than we are often tempted to preach or talk about. With just a few pages remaining, Galli gives us the starkest reminder of the way of the Savior when he says “Just when we need him most, God forsakes us.” We certainly do not want to admit this about our Lord, but he leaves us alone just at those moments that we most desperately think that we need Him. Why? So that we can share in the grief that Jesus knew at that bleak moment on the cross when he cried out to the silent heavens and know the indescribable joy of reuniting with God when He chooses to break the silence. We are shaken but stronger, mute in His glory but far more merciful than we could ever imagine.

A Single Thesis on the Church Door

I have called a heretic, labeled a fool, told that I am obviously too simple to understand the errors in my thinking, and virtually challenged to a duel by a self-proclaimed expert on Reformed theology. I have seen others abused, taunted in verse and lyric, and categorized as clowns for their theological positions. The overall tenor of debate over matters theological is becoming more and more rancorous and divisive with one recent posting labeling all of those in Christ’s church who don’t believe as the writer did as “deceived” and headed to Hell. This atmosphere has caused me to sharply curtail my posting in recent weeks as I reevaluated any contribution that it might have to greater work of the Church.

And then I reread a favorite quote by Annie Dillard…

On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest ideas of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews.

Pride abounds in certain theological circles with much chest pounding among writers over sudden revelations in life that cause them to suddenly pledge allegiance to one systematic way of interpreting the Bible or another. Where Pride rules, charity vanishes and it has become de rigueur to label any other theological system heretical at worst, and childish and misguided at best. We would do well to consider the many who came before us who were martyred as heretics only to be exonerated with the passage of time. Where would the English speaking world be without the first steps of William Tyndale?

I would implore those who judge another Christian’s belief to consider what spiritual gift they have been given that allows them to peer into the heart of another man and discern the work that God is doing there. Is it a biblical gift? Can you provide others with chapter and verse so that we might study it? Until such time as you are absolutely certain that one position is correct and another is not (and remember, one rapidly growing church gains assurance of the correctness of their theology through a burning in the bosom), we would all do well to remember the Lord’s words in John 17:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

To paraphrase Miss Dillard, remember who it is we write about so blithely…

The Role of Glossolalia According to Lukan Theology «

Brian LePort has a great discussion going on regarding Glossolalia (Tongues) at The Role of Glossolalia According to Lukan Theology «. This is pertinent material if you’ve been reading the various views on Spirit Baptism that have been posted here.

Spirit Baptism: The Wesleyan View

Having examined the Pentecostal and Charismatic positions on Baptism in the Holy Spirit, is it necessary to further analyze the general Wesleyan tradition for its position as well? With both of these movements acknowledged as children of Wesley, it is often assumed that their views mirror those of the parent but as with human children, this is certainly not the case. The thread of Wesleyan thought runs through numerous ministries so it will be necessary to speak in generalities that may be superceded by doctrinal distinctives within a particular denomination. After all, Wesley’s influence runs through such wide ranging bodies as the United Methodist Church, the Nazarenes, AME, countless Holiness ministries, and the Salvation Army. It is also crucial to note that Wesleyan Christianity has been, and continues to be, inherently practical and its primary concerns have been the preaching of the message of Salvation and in teaching the principles of Holy Living (Buschart, Protestant Traditions). In other words, theology is the servant of ministry and the practice of theological inquiry is driven by the requirements of answering questions related to daily living as a Christian.

A hallmark of Wesleyan tradition is the ideal of Entire Sanctification; the call to live a life of sanctified holiness which manifests through loving deeds. The message of the Wesley’s, in John’s preaching and Charles’ hymns, is holiness. The work of the Holy Spirit in this is to transform imputed righteousness into imparted righteousness, that is, not only can one be set aside as holy through the saving work of Christ but one can become holy in day to day living. Wesley is quick to note that this process of sanctification or perfection, as it is sometimes called, is ongoing through the life of the Christian and does not meet its final conclusion until the moment of glory. It is here that the idea of Spirit Baptism enters the discussion though it is far from a universal topic. Most classical Wesleyans associate perfection/sanctification with a ‘second blessing’ or a distinct work of God separate from conversion. The Church of the Nazarene, for example, teaches that entire sanctification is “wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration.” (Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene) Especially in those traditions that were born in the 19th century Holiness movement, this second blessing is associated with baptism of the Holy Spirit. Verses that we have already examined such as Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:1-21 are found again to form the foundation of this belief in a distinct experience that is subsequent to conversion.

Holiness is the charism received by the Christian at the moment of this second blessing say the Wesleyans (contra tongues and prophecy). The Holy Spirit cleanses the believer from their sin, enabling them to live Christlike lives moving consistently toward greater holiness. By His grace and power, people are enabled to restore the image of the God of Love within them and present an image that cries “Be holy as I am holy.” The Spirit-driven process of ongoing sanctification is not only evidence to the Christian of the Lord’s work in them but a proclamation to the world that they too can partake in the restoration offered by the Loving God.

Find other views on Spirit Baptism here.

Spirit Baptism: The Charismatic View

The Charismatic movement within the Christian Body traces it roots to a renewal that swept through the Church in the 1960s and 70s. The name of this broadly ecumenical movement derives from the Greek word translated as “gifts”, charisma (χάρισμα), while its theological roots were planted by early Pentecostal tradition. While many people consider Pentecostal and Charismatic believers to be one and the same, the Charismatic theological framework is not as dogmatic with regards to the subsequence of the Baptism in the Spirit and the evidence of tongues. Settled on the reality of Spirit Baptism and the need to practice all of the New Testament spiritual gifts including prophecy, discernment, tongues, healing, and miracles, Charismatics are nonetheless liberal in the belief as to when the baptism occurs and what gifts are evidenced and allow a wide range of belief on these matters. Making the Charismatic view even more unusual in Christian history is that the movement largely has not been known for creating new churches of like minded believers. The Charismatic believer will often be a force for change, or renewal, within the broader Catholic and Protestant bodies.

Since there is no single Charismatic position on spirit baptism, its effects, or its timing, how can we understand what it means to be a Charismatic believer? Perhaps the best framework in which to find the answers is found by viewing Spirit Baptism as a metaphor with multiple dimensions rather than a doctrine. Larry Hart categorizes the Baptism as (1) Jesus’ eschatological redemptive work; (2) Christian initiation; (3) the Christian life; and (4) empowerment for Christian mission and ministry. All of these factors contribute to an overall pneumatology and experience. Searching the Bible to understand the Charismatic worldview takes us far ranging from the book of Acts, as each author emphasized a different dimension of the Spirit’s work and effect. This counters the criticism often leveled at the Pentecostal reliance on the narrative passages in Acts by including the Johanine and Pauline corpus in the mix. “All that Jesus has done as the Messiah (Jewish language), the Christ (Greek language), in his earthly ministry and since his ascension–is subsumed under the Spirit baptism rubric.” (Hart) In other words, the Baptism in the Spirit has a place and is effectual in every aspect of our Christian life from initiation through the progression of sanctification and in the empowerment of our ministry.

This broad range of experience in the Charismatic viewpoint lessens the reliance on a specific timing and a single crisis event. Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a defining moment for the Christian, however and whenever it is experienced. Rather than a single moment in time, the Charismatic confirms the continual outworking of the Spirit in the process of sanctification and in the receipt of power for ministry. The expansive collection of views on the timing of the Baptism extends to the views of evidence in tongues. The view of speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of Spirit Baptism is a Pentecostal doctrinal distinctive. Charismatics characteristically have a wide range of views on this gift, ranging from being like-minded with the Pentecostal to the viewing of empowerment for all of the Gifts as evidence of the Baptism. The Charismatic typically looks for all of the gifts mentioned in the Bible to be distributed throughout the body rather than seeking the monolithic practice of a single gift. Within the Body, some should speak in tongues and some should heal and some should express wisdom, etc. Requiring tongues to be the sole evidence of Spiritual indwelling runs contrary to Scripture according to the Charismatic viewpoint.

Charismatic believers are dispersed throughout the Body in a way that mimics Paul’s teaching on the Gifts of the Spirit. All Christians will receive the Spirit Baptism for empowerment in their lives; it is releasing ourselves to the experience that sets the Charismatic apart. As the Church is surrendered to this empowerment, further revival will be the evidence of the Father’s glory, the Son’s loving sacrifice, and the Spirit’s work. The combination of a head and heart Christianity is especially attractive in this postmodern culture as more and more people look for something more than facts that feed their intellect.

Other views on Spirit Baptism can be found here.

Spirit Baptism: The Pentecostal View

“The person and the work of the Holy Spirit constitute a central and pervasive emphasis in Pentecostal theology.” (Buschart, Exploring Protestant Traditions) Of all members of the Christian body, the Pentecostal description applies to those who established the doctrine of a second baptism in the Holy Spirit along with evidence of that baptism as seen in the evidence of speaking in tongues. Pentecostals maintain that Spirit Baptism is normative for all Christians and that the crisis event is subsequent to the moment of conversion. Because of all that naturally flows from the Baptism, this tenet is central to Pentecostal doctrine and forms its heart. It is rooted in God’s promise as enunciated by the prophet Joel (2:28-29)

‘And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

The narrative passages in Acts build the foundation for the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit Baptism. As mentioned in my earlier post on the Evangelical position, receiving the the Holy Spirit is a common thread through almost all of the Body. The timing of receiving the Spirit is what sets the Pentecostal apart. Jesus’ disciples are seen as having entered the new covenant (i.e. been converted) by the death of Christ (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:11-29, 10:10, cf Jeremiah 31:31-34) and in the opening chapters of Acts, the disciples are seen as waiting in the upper room for the gift that the Father would visit upon them as promised by the Lord (Acts 1:4). As the Church, they engage in the selection of new leadership (1:16-26) and practice constant prayer (1:14). This prayer serves as a prelude to the receipt of the Spirit, famously recorded at Pentecost in Acts 2. It is this pattern, repeated again in the chapters of Acts that follow that lead the Pentecostal believer to establish it as normative. [ Phillip and the Samaritans – believed and were baptized 8:12 >> Peter & John lay hands on them and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit 8:14-17. Saul’s Conversion – accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior by his obedience 9:6 >> Ananias prays for him and he receives the Holy Spirit 9:17. The Gentile Believers – 11:15-17 Peter once again recounts the Holy Spirit coming upon those who have already believed (Aorist Active Participle – vv 17 pisteusasin “having believed”)]

Pentecostalism takes it name from the watershed event in Acts 2 and also sees a secondary event that follows the Spirit Baptism as being normative in the believer who receives the gift; the evidence of speaking in tongues. We see this phenomenon (non-pejorative usage e.g. Williams Renewal Theology V.2) in verse 2:4, preceding Peter’s address to the multitude (2:14-36), after the Spirit had been poured out on the Gentile believers (10:45-46), and when Paul lays hands on the Ephesian believers 19:6. It is implied elsewhere, including the Paul’s reference to the gift (1 Cor 14:18) even though Acts is silent on the practice at his Baptism. The Assemblies of God Fundamental Beliefs contain this reference to the gift:

8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.

Acts 2:4 [NIV]

The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use.

1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [NIV]
1 Corinthians 12:28 [NIV]

What is the purpose of Spirit Baptism, according to our Pentecostal brethren? It is a point of empowerment for greater witness on behalf of and in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) The Spirit has certainly moved within the Church, stirring revival among Pentecostal believers and energizing them for growth and tireless missionary works.