irenaeus the continuationist

Was Irenaeus a charismatic?

• Against Heresies 2.31 - Christians still heal the blind, deaf, and chase away all sorts of demons. Occasionally the dead are raised. Gnostics and other non-Christians can't chase away demons - except those demons that are sent into others by themselves, if they can even do so much as this.
• Against Heresies 2.32 - Some Christians do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe in Christ, and join themselves to the church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. The church does not perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but directing her prayers to the Lord.
• Against Heresies 4.9 - In 1 Corinthians 13, "that which is perfect" and "face to face" refer to the second coming. 
• Against Heresies 5.6 - Those who are "perfect" are those who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as He Himself, used  also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms "spiritual," they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and seek spiritual understanding to become purely spiritual. 

From James R. Payton Jr.'s Irenaeus on the Christian Faith:

... The heretics cannot raise the dead, as the Lord raised them, and as the apostles did by prayer, and as has been frequently done in the brotherhood because of some necessity. At times, the entire church in a particular locality has entreated for this extraordinary gift by mush basting and prayer of the saints. But the heretics do not even believe this can be done ... (2:31,2)

If, however, they maintain that the Lord, too, only appeared to perform miraculous works, we will direct them to the prophets' writings, and prove from then that such miraculous things were predicted about him, that they unquestionably took place, and that he is the only Son of God. So also, those who genuinely are his disciples receive grace from him to perform miracles in his name for the welfare of others - all according to the gift which each has received from him [cf. Rom 12.6-8; 1 Co 12.7, 10]. Some exorcise demons, and many who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits come to believe in Christ and join the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions and utter prophecies. Still others heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are mdd well. Moreover, as I have said, even the dead have been raised, and have remained among us for many years.

What else should I say? It is not possible to number all the gifts which the Church, throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ (who was crucified under Pontius Pilate), and which she exercises day by day for the benefit of the nations, without practicing deception toward anyone, and not taking any reward from them for these miracles. As she has received freely from God, she also freely ministers to others [Mt 10.8]. (2:32,4)

The Church does nothing by angelic invocations or incantations or any evil art. Her practice is to direct her prayers in a pure, sincere, and honest spirit to the Lord who made all things, calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the way the Church works miracles for humanity's advantage. She does not mislead them, for even now the name of our Lord Jesus Christ grants benefits to human beings and thoroughly and effectively cures, anywhere, all who believe in him. ... From this, it can readily be seen that, when he was made man, he had fellowship with his creation and did everything through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all - as the prophets had foretold. (2:32,5)

continuing as a continuationist

Great post by Sam Storms on the cessationist v. continuationist debate.

[Last week (May 14, 2014), Andrew Wilson posted an article in which he responded to Tom Pennington’s response to him on the subject of spiritual gifts. I thought you might find it helpful. Andrew is an Elder at King’s Church in Eastbourne, U.K. and is pursuing a Ph.D. at King’s College, London.]

Remember “Strange Fire”? Well, during the conference, I wrote an article responding to the case for cessationism presented by Tom Pennington, which you can read here (www.thinktheology.co.uk). Recently, Tom Pennington responded, with great kindness and care, on the Grace to You blog. His response was an excellent example of patient and faithful engagement, and I am grateful to him, and to the GTY ministry as a whole, for making it available. In response, and in the hope of further future dialogue, here’s a summary of the concessions I want to make (where he is right and I am wrong), some corrections (where I think he is wrong), some encouraging areas of convergence (where we agree), and then finally, the crux of the matter. Let’s hope it brings more light than heat.

Concessions

On two points, I misrepresented Tom Pennington, and I apologise unreservedly. The first is that he referred to miracles being done in the age of “Moses and Joshua”, and I missed the reference to Joshua, before making that omission a basis for part of my response. This was clumsy. The second is that I carelessly missed the distinction he makes, in talking about the end of the apostolate, between eyewitness apostles (which no longer exist) and other apostles (which many Charismatics believe do). He says that this confusion was disappointing to him personally, and I agree; it is both unrepresentative of what he said, and embarrassing. My only defence is that I wrote the piece in the first 24 hours after the talk was given, in more of a rush than I should have, while the conference was still taking place – and since I had no idea that a transcript was available online at the time, if indeed it was, I used Tim Challies’ summary instead of his exact text. My sincere apologies to him for both errors.

Corrections

Tom Pennington does, however, make some clear errors of his own. Firstly, Pennington accuses me of “overstatement and misdirection” in referring to an overwhelming scholarly consensus in the commentaries that the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 refers to the eschaton; his evidence for this is that there are “ten possible interpretations” of what the “perfect” means here. What Pennington does not mention, however, is that most of those ten – including the highly tendentious, and common cessationist, view that the “perfect” refers to the closure of the canon – are summarily debunked by those same commentaries, rather than presented as viable alternatives. Since my PhD studies are in 1 Corinthians, I have a fair line-up of commentaries to hand, and every single one of them agrees that Paul is referring to the eschaton: Robertson and Plummer, Lietzmann, Barrett, Morris, Conzelmann, Fee (Warfield’s classic cessationist view is “impossible”), Blomberg (“there can be only one possible interpretation”), Witherington, Schrage, Thiselton (“all that is clear is that the gifts cease at the eschaton”), Garland, Wright, Fitzmyer (“it has undoubtedly something to do with the eschaton”), and Ciampa and Rosner (“the context makes it abundantly clear”). Of course there is the occasional dissenting voice, but this “overwhelming scholarly consensus” is simply a fact, as I said. Not only that, but Pennington’s claim that “for most of church history this text was used primarily to argue against the continuation of the miraculous gifts” is also inaccurate (see the study of Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata, and the summary statement of Thiselton: “few or none of the serious ‘cessationist’ arguments depends on a specific exegesis of 1 Cor 13:8-11”). Surely it is Pennington who is guilty of overstatement and misdirection here, at least when it comes to scholarship on 1 Corinthians.

Secondly, he argues that when Charismatics agree that the eyewitness apostles have died out, we “tacitly accept one of the key tenets of cessationism” and become “de facto cessationists, at least in part”. But neither do we believe this tacitly – I stated it explicitly in my article – nor is it a specifically cessationist tenet, since both charismatics and cessationists agree on it. The question is not whether eyewitness apostles have ceased, since we all agree that they have, but whether gifts like prophecy, languages, interpretation, healing and miracles have ceased. All Christians believe there was something unique about the apostolic period (eyewitnesses of the resurrection, and canonical scriptures being written); all Christians believe many of the gifts have continued (teaching, administrating, helping, leading, and so on). Tom Pennington introduces himself in his article as a “Pastor-Teacher”. Does this mean that he has become “a de facto charismatic, at least in part”, because he believes in the continuation of that gift? Of course not.

Thirdly, it is frankly absurd to say that accusing a billion Roman Catholics of fraud, deceit and delusion is what “the church has always done”, and to suggest that it is what I myself do. Much of the church hasn’t, and doesn’t (unless you limit “the church” to “cessationist Protestants”). I don’t. (I suspect that, as with any miraculous claims, some are true and some are false). Cessationist Protestants do, of course. But let’s not get carried away with historical exaggerations about what the church has always done.

Fourthly, Pennington claims that the following statement I make, in response to his claim that miracles have ceased because the eyewitness apostles have ceased, “isn’t clear”:

“This argument takes us nowhere: all agree that the eyewitness apostles have ceased, and all agree that (say) pastors and teachers have not ceased. Only if we can show that all New Testament miracles, prophecies, tongues and healings came via apostles—which is patently not the case—would this hold any water at all.”

I don’t see why this is unclear, but let me try and make it clearer. Pennington’s argument here is that the miraculous gifts have ceased because the unique gift of apostleship has ceased. And my argument is, simply, that this doesn’t follow, unless we can show that all NT miracles, prophecies, languages and healings came via apostles (which we can’t, because it isn’t true). We all agree that some gifts continue. We all agree that one gift doesn’t. But this in no way supports the claim that “miraculous” (?) gifts across the board have ceased. Is that clearer?

Fifthly, Pennington is simply wrong to say that there are “rarely firsthand accounts” of miracles (see, recently, Keener’s Miracles). I would be happy to introduce him to many firsthand witnesses of my acquaintance, but I suspect I will not be taken up on that ...

Sixthly, his claim that “the consistent testimony of the church’s key leaders is that the miraculous and revelatory spiritual gifts ended with the Apostolic Age” is overstated. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Novatian and, famously, even Augustine himself (City of God 22:8) spoke of miracles taking place in their own days. (Pennington might well respond that examples of miracles are not the same as examples of miraculous gifts, but such a sharp distinction is nowhere found in the New Testament). Wesley’s attitude to prophecy was far from cessationist. Of course there are others, like Chrysostom and the earlier Augustine (before he apparently changed his mind), who say the opposite. But it is not a “consistent testimony”.

Seventhly, he reiterates John MacArthur’s point that Charismatics who are either Roman Catholic, or adhering to a prosperity gospel, form such a large part of the whole that “the movement as a whole can claim neither the Scripture nor the Spirit.” This is the saddest sentence of the review to read, from my perspective; it seems like a blanket write-off of millions and millions of charismatic Christians today who are preaching the gospel, defending the truth, standing firm in the face of suffering, and glorifying God in their marriages and lives and deaths, because a speculative statistical appraisal tells Pennington (or MacArthur) that they have been swamped by the loony fringe. But the best response to it is not emotional but logical: surely, if we applied that logic to cessationists, we could say the same, since most professing Christians who deny miraculous gifts today are either nominal believers or liberals. Come to that, we could say it of the global church: since many people in the Church are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, flaky, loopy or weird, we would have to say that “the Church as a whole can claim neither the Scripture nor the Spirit.” Assuming Pennington would not say that – and I sincerely hope he wouldn’t! – he probably shouldn’t say it of Charismatics either.

Convergence

It’s always edifying to point out the areas where you agree with an interlocutor, as well as the areas where you disagree. To that end, I am encouraged by the many points of common ground between us. We agree on the final authority, inspiration, sufficiency, clarity and infallibility of the scriptures. We agree that the biblical canon is closed. We agree that Paul was the last eyewitness of the resurrection, and that there was a type of apostle in the New Testament period who does not continue. As such, we agree that one type of spiritual gift has ceased (the unique eyewitness apostles), but also that many spiritual gifts continue (teaching, leading, helping, administrating, giving, encouraging). We agree that a lot of what goes on in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements is deplorable. We agree that all spiritual gifts should be practiced in submission to the authority of God in Scripture. We agree that God can heal today. We agree that differing from one another on miraculous gifts does not mean we are saying those who disagree with us are not Christians. That is not an insignificant list!

Crux

Yet the disagreement is still important, and it ultimately comes down to questions of exegesis. Is “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13 the eschaton, or the closure of the New Testament canon, or something else? Is any distinction between miraculous gifts (languages, prophecy, healing, miracles) and non-miraculous gifts (teaching, helping, administrating, encouraging, leading) evident in Paul’s letters? Were the prophets and prophecies spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12-14 regarded by Paul as infallible divine revelation? Does Ephesians 2:20 indicate that no further prophecies of any kind will happen in the life of the church? Did Agabus get the details of his Acts 21 prophecy wrong, even as he got the thrust of it right? Are miraculous gifts, in Scripture, exclusively for the purpose of authenticating a messenger, or do they have other purposes as well?

On many of these points, I would argue, the case for cessationism is extremely weak, and rightly regarded as an obscure (and, in one case, risible) minority view in scholarly works on the relevant texts. This does not prove that Pennington, MacArthur and their fellow cessationists are wrong, of course; scholars form mistaken consensuses (consensi?) all the time. It does, however, indicate that Charismatics are on somewhat stronger ground than either Pennington or MacArthur are prepared to admit, and that some of the sweeping statements they have made about Charismatic theology are unjustified. Nevertheless, as long as conversations like this are happening, we can hope that God will bring us closer together in Christ until he returns. We know in part, and we prophesy in part, but then we shall know fully, even as we are fully known.

talents v. gifts

I found the following by J. Warner Wallace to be helpful:

In the many years before I was a Christian, I used to hear believers talk about their “spiritual gifts”. They would describe their ability to sing or teach or perform a certain task, and for the life of me, these abilities merely sounded like “natural talents”. I came to the conclusion those wacky Christians just had a language all their own and a strong desire to see everything as a gift from God (when it could more easily be described in natural terms). When I became Christian myself, I began to recognize a number of abilities emerging or blossoming in my own life. Were these just latent talents, or was there something to this “spiritual gifting” stuff? Maybe it was time to take a second look at the issue of “spiritual gifts” and compare them to what I used to think of as “natural talents”.

Even before I started to look at the differences between “gifts” and “talents”, I recognized they all came from the same source. If we accept the premise that an all-powerful God is the creator of all matter and life, it is reasonable to conclude our abilities (even if we are inclined to attribute them to genetics or environment), must ultimately come from the source of genetics and environment: the God who created everything in the first place. We can squabble over whether something is a talent or a gift, but we need to be careful, as thoughtful Christians, not to exchange the two words as if they had identical meaning. They don’t.

Everyone has some sort of innate talent. You may not think that you are particularly talented, but if you take a closer look at yourself, you’ll discover there is some ability you possess in more abundance than others. Sure, there may be someone out there who is even better at this particular ability, but that’s not the point; you also have an increased ability in this area relative to your other skills and aptitudes. Maybe you’re a better athlete than musician, or maybe you’re a better artist than mathematician. You know where you are talented and where you are not. But how do you know if this particular ability you’re considering is a “natural talent” or a “spiritual gift”? Well, maybe we should start by looking at what the Bible has to say about spiritual gifts. Paul describes spiritual gifts in three places:

1 Corinthians 12:7-11

But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Romans 12:3-8

For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. And since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let each exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

Ephesians 4:10-12

He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

Now some Christians look at these verses and wonder if the “gift list” described here is exhaustive. Are these the only abilities that are actually “spiritual gifts”? Are there any more? Well, considering the fact Paul wrote these three letters to three different groups of believers and did not routinely repeat the same list of gifts, it’s probably safe to assume there are additional spiritual gifts unlisted here. So the question is: “What are the differences between natural talents and spiritual gifts, and how might we recognize a spiritual gift when we see one?” Theologians might disagree with each other when talking about talents and gifts, but there are a number of seemingly obvious differences:

Talents Are Inherited / Gifts Are Received

This is perhaps the biggest and most important difference. Natural talents are those abilities inherited from one’s parents and nurtured in the context of one’s family. We all know people who are talented and come from a long line of family members who share the same talent (consider, for example, the Matthews family in the NFL). If one member of such a family doesnot possess this shared talent, they typically will say something like, “I didn’t get the (insert talent here) gene”. Natural talents are just that: “natural”! They can be attributed to the natural genetic material existing within all of us, passed down from generation to generation. Spiritual gifts, on the other hand, come directly from the Spirit of God; that’s why they are called “gifts” in the first place! The “Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” Natural talents are imparted at our natural birth; spiritual gifts are given when we are born again.

Talents Are Possessed by the Saved and Unsaved / Gifts Are Possessed by the Saved

Everyone, whether they are a believer or a non-believer, has some sort of talent, but only believers have spiritual gifts. The Spirit of God resides in each and every believer, and “God has allotted to each a measure of faith,” and an ability transcending our natural talents. Because the Spirit of God is the source for spiritual gifts, we shouldn’t be surprised those who have God’s Spirit residing in them (those who are saved), would have more than natural talent; believers also have gifts of the Spirit:

• The word of wisdom
• The word of knowledge
• Faith (extraordinary trust and surrender)
• Gifts of healing
• The effecting of miracles
• Prophecy
• The distinguishing of spirits
• Tongues
• The interpretation of tongues
• Service
• Teaching
• Exhortation
• Giving
• Leadership
• Mercy
• Apostleship
• Evangelism
• Pastoral care

A number of spiritual gifts listed here sound a lot like natural talents. After all, don’t you know a non-Christian who is a talented leader or teacher? Non-believers can be very talented in some of these areas without having been given a gift of the Spirit. But in addition to the gifts that sound like talents possessed by non-believers, there are others on the list that seem specific to the lives of believers. Believers have many natural talents, but in addition to these talents, they are also gifted by God.

Talents Are Developed and Expected / Gifts Are Matured and Surprising

Let’s say you are a talented leader and you then become a Christian. If God decides to use you in some role of leadership, you just may find your talent is greatly multiplied when God also gives you the spiritual gift of leadership. You may now discover your leadership skills are above and beyond anything you were capable of doing prior to being saved. God has a tendency to surprise us in this way. We can all develop our natural talents with hard work and perseverance; we practice and train and along the way we can achieve the expected results. Spiritual gifts, on the other hand, are increased as we mature in our relationship with God:

Ephesians 4:14-16

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

When we have been gifted by God to accomplish something, we should expect the unexpected. As we mature in our relationship with God, he will surprise us by gifting us beyond our natural talent.

Talents Can Be Used Selfishly / Gifts Are Used to Serve God’s Purposes

The Bible clearly tells us that spiritual gifts are given to us for a specific reason. While we may find ourselves using our natural talent to serve our own selfish interests and desires, spiritual gifts have been given to us by God “for the common good” and to the glory of God; they are given to us so we can give them back to God as we serve His purpose of building the family of believers. Spiritual gifts are given to us so all of us can perform “the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ”. That’s why all of us are gifted in some way by God. We’re not supposed to sit and watch the pastor do the work, we are supposed to get out and use the gifts God has given us.

Natural talents are the result of our genetic inheritance and the training resulting from our family environment. They are possessed by both believers and non-believers, and they can be used to serve God or serve ourselves. Spiritual gifts are given to us by the Spirit of God once we have been saved. They blossom as we mature in our faith and they are used to glorify God as we serve others and build the family of God.

concise christianity

 

Herman Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics (Vol 1):

The essence of the Christian religion consists in this, that the creation of the Father, devastated by sin, is restored in the death of the Son of God, and recreated by the Holy Spirit into the kingdom of God.

(via)

continuing as a continuationist

When will cessationists cease? Well, I suppose they will continue as long as continuationists continue. As a continuationist, I appreciate Luke Geraty's post here:

I already wrote a long post on Strange Fire, so this will be a little shorter. Tim Challies has posted Tom Pennington’s case for Cessationism. It probably has the most substance for Continuationists to consider out of all that has been shared thus far at MacArthur’s anti-charismatic rally. Pennington suggests there are four chief arguments for the charismatic position and then offers seven arguments for the cessationist position. Let’s “briefly” analyze these…

Alleged “chief” arguments for the Charismatic position:

1. The New Testament doesn’t say they have ceased. But then again, it doesn’t say that they won’t either.
2. 1 Corinthians 13:10 – they say this means that only when Christ returns will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecies cease. This implies that the gifts continue. But this is an uncertain interpretation.
3. The New Testament speaks only of the church age, and so, they argue, the gifts that began the church age should continue throughout it. They say we artificially divide it between apostolic and post-apostolic eras. But they do this, too, by not believing that the apostolic office still continues.
4. 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic experiences can’t all be wrong. But if we accept this, then logically we should accept the miracles attested to by one billion Catholics in the world. The truth is that 500 million + people can be wrong.

Regarding #1, I’m surprised. I thought both Cessationists and Continuationists agreed that the Bible does say that the charismata will cease. Paul explicitly stated that “as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease” (1 Cor. 13:8). And in reality, I think a serious exegesis of 1 Cor. 1:4-7 leads me to conclude that the Bible teaches that the spiritual gifts will continue until the “revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ (v.7). This seems similar to what Paul writes in 1 Cor. 13, which we’ll address next.

Regarding #2, I’ll let that slide. I find it questionable that what is most likely in the text is reduced to being “uncertain,” but I’ll grant that the text has some ambiguity with in. 1 Cor. 1:4-7, of course, doesn’t but we’ll let that slide. Interestingly, I’ve never heard a Charismatic use 1 Cor. 13:10 as a “chief” argument for their position which leads me to conclude that those who are participating in this Strange Fire conference probably haven’t interacted with any serious Charismatics.

Regarding #3, it’s even more clear that these folks don’t know much about Charismatics because you’ll find quite a bit of difference on the issue of apostolic ministry. Wayne Grudem makes a case against the office of Apostle in his widely used Systematic Theology and yet both New Frontiers and Sovereign Grace believe in modern day apostles. In fact, one of these alleged apostles spoke at at conference put on by MacArthur!

Regarding #4, I am unaware of Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms, John Piper, John Wimber, Craig Keener, Gordon Fee, or any of the other number of scholars who hold to Continuationist theology that would argue that since there are a lot of charismatics they must be correct.

Therefore, I conclude that these alleged “chief” arguments have an agenda behind them and that agenda is simply to make a case against Charismatic theology. Or, to be forthright, Pennington is simply building a case against a straw man.

Pennington’s 7 arguments for Cessationism

Finally we have something that we can interact with that is from a Cessationist. Thus far we’ve heard a lot about what Charismatics allegedly believe but we haven’t heard a lot about what Cessationists believe. So I’m thankful for Pennington’s attempt to make an actual argument for something!

Let’s consider his arguments:

(1) The unique role of miracles. Pennington takes this right out of MacArthur’s playbook (cf. Charismatic Chaos, pp. 112-14). Jack Deere dismantled this argument so thoroughly in his Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Appendix C, “Were There Only Three Periods of Miracles?”). 

Pennington’s case is:

“There were only 3 primary periods in which God worked miracles through unique men. The first was with Moses; the second was during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha; the third was with Christ and his apostles.”

Well, we’ll just consider the miracles connected with the prophet Daniel and we undermine the entire argument. No one would ever read the Old Testament, without having a theological agenda, and come to the conclusion that there were only three periods of time where God worked miracles through men. That’s absurd and I’m actually surprised that this is number one.

(2) The end of the gift of apostleship. I fail to see how either the end or the continuation of the office of Apostle demands that that the gifts of healings, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues has ceased. Pennington previously argued that “the primary purpose of Jesus’ miracles was to confirm his credentials as God’s final and ultimate messenger” and that “Jesus gave this same power to the apostles, and their miracles served exactly the same purpose.” These purposes do not demand anything of apostles. Furthermore, I think Eph. 4:11 provides a serious challenge to our systematic categories regarding the office of apostle, as well as the fact that the NT provides clear evidence that there were different types of apostles (cf. the difference of the apostle Paul or Peter with the apostle Epaphroditus of Phil. 2:25).

(3) The foundational nature of the New Testament apostles and prophets. If Pennington expects us to grant that there is some ambiguity in 1 Cor. 13:10, surely he’ll acknowledge that there are differences in how exegetes understand Eph. 2:20-21. Grudem and Wallace have both taken different perspectives on this and there is diversity within the scholarly literature.

Interestingly, appeal was made during Steve Lawson’s talk at Strange Fire to John Calvin (which probably caused the Reformer who strongly held to Sola Scriptura to roll over in his grave). In Calvin’s commentary on Ephesians, he clearly believed that the “prophets” mentioned in Ephesians 2:20 were the Old Testament prophets, so if we’re going to allow Calvin to guide us, maybe we should consider his exegesis and not selectively choose sources that only support our theological agenda.

At any rate, I’ll grant that apostles and prophets served a foundational nature in the early church while also believing that the charismata in question still continue.

(4) The nature of the New Testament miraculous gifts. Pennington attempts to discredit the work of Grudem on NT prophecy. He states that there is no difference between OT and NT prophecy. He also says that “New Testament prophecy is direct, infallible revelation.” I’m curious as to why the early church didn’t write down all of these infallible revelations and include them in our Bibles! Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who prophesied and yet we don’t have any of their prophecies in our Bibles? Weren’t they infallible revelations? What about the curious case of Agabus in Acts 21? Or how are we to then understand the church in Corinth? Was Paul really telling them all to give direct, infallible revelation? If so, why don’t we have any of these prophet words that are infallible?

The fact of the matter is that Grudem (The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today) and Carson (Showing the Spirit) offer a better understanding of the nature of the NT prophecy. It was not infallible words but needed to be tested (1 Thess. 5:20-21).

Furthermore, I have seen examples of tongues and their interpretation fitting exactly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14. I’ve also seen healings that were exactly like that of the 1st century. Are we to understand Pennington as saying that he has investigated every modern claim of a “sign and wonder” and determined they are nothing like the biblical examples? Hmmmm. I think not.

(5) The testimony of church history. Pennington asks, “How do they explain the ceasing of miraculous gifts throughout such long periods of church history?” He cites John Chrysostom, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and B. B. Warfield as evidence for this concern.

D.A. Carson wisely states that,

“there is enough evidence that some form of ‘charismatic’ gifts continued sporadically across the centuries of church history that it is futile to insist on doctrinaire grounds that every report is spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration” (Showing the Spirit, 166).

These examples are documented in Kydd’s Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church and Kelsey’s Healing and Christianity. By the way, Augustine retracted his cessationist views and actually provided evidence that the gift of healings was still in operation (cf. City of God, Book XXII, chps. 8-10). Oh, and Grudem provides evidence that Spurgeon actually operated in the gift of prophecy in his The Gift of Prophecy. By the way, did I mention that there’s evidence that suggests that John Calvin might have spoken in tongues? Uh oh…

At any rate, this argument for Cessationism should be abandoned because it is simply not true.

(6) The sufficiency of Scripture. Pennington suggests that “the Spirit speaks only in and through the inspired Word.” What’s fascinating about this statement is that it actually undermines the very Scripture that it’s attempting to protect. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that God only speaks to us through the Bible. This is a presupposition that controls Cessationist epistemology.

Furthermore, I think Grudem has amply demonstrated in his The Gift of Prophecy that the sufficiency of Scripture and continuing charismata are not mutually exclusive. Oh, and did I mention that I don’t think most Cessationists, especially of the MacArthur kind, even have a good understanding of what the gift of tongues was? No? Okay, I’ll save that for later. I just reject the entire scope of MacArthur’s understanding of the nature of tongues.

(7) The New Testament governed the miraculous gifts. Okay, you are about to witness a modern day miracle. I, as a practicing charismatic, totally agree with Pennington here. Maybe it’s because I’m a Third Wave charismatic, but I agree that charismatics have been known to abuse spiritual gifts, especially the gift of tongues. What passes for the expression of tongues in some churches would leave the apostle Paul shaking his head.

So I totally agree that the NT governed the miraculous gifts. Paul lays out guidelines in 1 Corinthians 12-14. I agree with Pennington’s reasoning here. However, I wonder if Pennington would agree with Paul’s governance of the spiritual gifts when he wrote, “earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1) and “do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:39).

If we’re going to express concern that charismatics do not follow the NT pattern for the expression of tongues, let’s express concern that Cessationists reject an apostolic command.

acts

For some, the Church in Acts is unique and a closed and completed history, for others, it's the pattern. Here is Sam Storms on his take:

In the book, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Zondervan), I engaged with cessationist Richard Gaffin on the significance of the book of Acts for the debate over the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. Here is the substance of that exchange.

Gaffin argues that "Acts intends to document a completed history, a unique epoch in the history of redemption -- the once-for-all, apostolic spread of the gospel 'to the ends of the earth'" (37-38). But Luke nowhere says this. Even if it were true, where does Luke assert that what the Holy Spirit did in that "history" is not to be done in subsequent "histories"? Again, Luke nowhere asserts that Acts was "unique". Were we to concede that in certain respects it was, why conclude that the uniqueness and therefore unrepeatable characteristics of Acts is principally in its portrayal of the charismatic work of the Spirit? Luke never suggests, far less asserts, that the way God related to and was active among his people in that particular "history" is finished. Gaffin has articulated a premise that may have a measure of truth, but lacks textual evidence on which to support the theological conclusion he draws from it.

One searches in vain for a text in which the charismatic and supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that attended the expansion of the gospel, and subsequently characterized the life and ministry of the churches that were planted, is not meant by God to attend the expansion of the gospel into the rest of the world in subsequent centuries or is not meant to characterize the life of such churches.

Gaffin also argues that "it is in terms of this controlling perspective that the miraculous experience of those at Pentecost and elsewhere in Acts have their meaning” (38). He then points to the signs, wonders, and miracles as attesting to the realization of this apostolic missionary program. But is that their only meaning and function? None of this has any negative bearing on the perpetuity of the gifts unless Gaffin can locate some text, any text, where the exclusive purpose of miracles and charismata is attestation of apostolic mission. Gaffin's argument isreductionism gone to seed. He isolates one function of miraculous phenomena, ties it in with the period in which it occurs, and then concludes that it can have no other functions in any otherperiod of church history. And he does this without one biblical text that explicitly asserts it.

He places emphasis on the inaugural breakthrough of the gospel into Samaria and to the Gentiles and insists that the miraculous phenomena which occurred on those occasions played an essential role of attesting to this expansion. I agree. But we must also focus on the churches that were planted and emerged and endured in the aftermath of these so-called "epochal stages" in redemptive history? What I read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, and Galatians, indicates that the miraculous phenomena which accompanied the beginning and founding of these churches are to characterize their up-building and growth as well. It appears as if Gaffin is asking us to believe that because signs, wonders, and miraculous gifts helped launch the church by serving to attest the original proclamation of the gospel, those phenomena have no additional or ongoing function to sustain and nurture the church itself. But this is a non-sequitur lacking in biblical evidence.

Gaffin says that "Acts 2 and the subsequent miraculous events Luke narrates are not intended to establish a pattern of 'repetitions' of Pentecost to continue on indefinitely in church history. Rather, together they constitute, as already intimated, an event-complex, complete with the finished apostolic program they accompany" (38). But why can't the miraculous events and charismata continue without thinking that this means a "repetition" of Pentecost? Again, the once-for-allness of Pentecost as a redemptive historical event does not require, or even suggest, the restriction of miraculous charismata to that period. What Gaffin persists in "concluding" by "theological inference" the Bible itself nowhere asserts.

Gaffin concludes that "it would certainly be wrong to argue that Luke is intending to show that miraculous gifts and power experiences cease with the history he documented" (38-39). I find this confusing in view of his affirmation that the miraculous events in Acts subsequent to Pentecost are not intended by Luke to tell us what the rest of church history is to be like. Such events (presumably, prophecy, tongues, and healing), according to Gaffin, were “complete with thefinished [emphasis mine] apostolic program they accompany" (38).

He then asserts that "in this respect, to observe that in Acts others than apostles exercise miraculous gifts (e.g., 6:8), is beside the point. To offer that as evidence that such gifts will continue beyond the time of the apostles pulls apart what for Luke belongs together” (39). I disagree. I believe it is precisely the point. The point being that the miraculous ministry of the Holy Spirit is designed not solely for the apostles nor solely for the foundational work they performed. If, as Gaffin contends, miraculous phenomena and apostolic ministry belong together in Luke's mind, why then do others than the apostles perform miracles? It will not suffice for Gaffin simply to assert that non-apostolic miracles are beside the point. It is a vitally important point that cessationism cannot explain. Let us remember that it is, in fact, Luke himself who pulls apart the two. Perhaps he does so because that was his point!

Gaffin says that "others exercise such gifts by virtue of the presence and activity of the apostles; they do so under an 'apostolic umbrella,' so to speak" (39). Where does Luke ever say this? What biblical text ever asserts it? And even if it should be granted, why would we conclude that God doesn't want the church to experience such gifts after the apostles are gone? Again, universally applicable conclusions have been deduced without textual warrant.

In reflecting on the book of Acts, I find nothing in the perpetuity of signs, wonders and miraculous gifts that threatens the integrity or uniqueness of the apostolic era. The uniqueness of the apostolic era is that it was first and foundational, not that it was miraculous.

purpose and power

John Wimber in The Way In is the Way On:

In the Vineyard, we place a priority on being empowered by the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit empowers for a purpose-not just an experience. We seek the active presence of the Spirit to continue Jesus’ ministry. At times we almost lose the purpose; at times we seem to lose the power. From the beginning we have attempted, however inadequately, to keep these two together.

…

To continue Jesus’ ministry requires that we adopt His lifestyle. Unfortunately, Christians in the West would rather implement programs. We are blind to our mechanistic assumptions when we reduce ministry to reproducible components and try to apply them indiscriminately. There is nothing wrong, for instance, with a tool for witnessing like The Four Spiritual Laws. It helps believers communicate biblical truth. But should we use it every time? No. We must ask what is appropriate in each situation and learn the art of listening, even as Jesus modeled (see John 5:19, 30).

(via)

unity and the spirit

Charles Hodge, in his exposition on 1 & 2 Corinthians:

Every organism, or organic whole, supposes diversity and unity. That is, different parts united so as to constitute one whole. The apostle had taught that in the unity of the church there is a diversity of gifts. This is illustrated by a reference to the human body. It is one, yet it consists of many members. And this diversity is essential to unity; for unless the body consisted of many members, it would not be a body, i.e. an organic whole.

Charles Colsonin The Body:

Diversity within the Body, while it may chafe and bind and even pain, provides a healthy corrective ... The fact is, we can learn from one another ... Respecting and appreciating different traditions not only teaches us more about our faith, but encourages a measure of theological humility. This attitude helps us avoid the kind of rigid conformity that says everyone must look, act, talk and think alike. And this also helps us make the gospel accessible to all people.

Marlene Nathan on 1 Co 12.12-30:

The very thing that Paul says here will create our unity is now a source of division and disunity: the Holy Spirit. Christians are more divided over the person and work of the Holy Spirit than almost anything else. When we reject the means for unity that God has provided, then we are forced to substitute man-made alternatives (external standards and conformity to rules) in order to be united.

healing in atonement

Sams Storms attempts to articulate the how healing is found in the atonement and delineate between "third wave" thinking and traditional charismatic thinking.

Here in 1 Peter 2:24-25 the apostle is very clearly alluding to Isaiah 53:4-5. There the prophet declared:

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”

In order to understand what Peter had in mind in quoting this OT passage, I need to address a very controversial question: Is there healing in the atonement?

Some believe that just as God the Father made Jesus to be “sin” for us on the cross he also made him to be “sick” for us on the cross. Word of Faith advocate Gloria Copeland once wrote: “Jesus bore your sicknesses and carried your diseases at the same time and in the same manner (emphasis mine) that he bore your sins.” Another author put it this way:

"When Jesus stood bearing the lashes from the Roman soldiers, all our physical pain and sicknesses were being heaped upon him. . . It is as if one lash was for cancer, another for bone disease, another for heart disease, and so on. Everything that causes physical pain was laid on Jesus as the nails were driven into His hands and feet” (Colin Urquhart).

What is being said is that Christ bore our sicknesses in the very same way that he bore our sins. Another once wrote that “Christ endured vicariously our diseases as well as our iniquities.”

We know what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God “made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf." He was declaring that the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ and that it was because of that guilt that he was punished in our place. But what can it possibly mean to say God made him “to be sick” on our behalf?

There is no guilt in disease or sickness. Having diabetes or a head cold is not sinful. The Bible tells us to pray “forgive us our trespasses” and urges us “to confess our sins,” but nowhere does it say that we should pray “forgive us our arthritis” or “Lord, I confess that I have the flu.” Sickness is not sin. The Bible never issues the command, “Thou shalt not commit cancer,” or “Flee the flu.” Nevertheless, many insist that Jesus “bore the penalty for our sins and sicknesses." But if sickness is not a sin, how can it incur a penalty?

Of course, ultimately all sickness is a result of sin, but only in the sense that Adam’s fall introduced corruption and death into the human race. But that does not mean that every time we get sick it is because of some specific sin we have committed. It does mean that had Adam not sinned, there would be no sickness. Sickness is the effect of sin (just like tornadoes, weeds, and sadness). But that is altogether different from saying that sickness is sin. We do not repent for having kidney stones, nor do we come under conviction for catching the measles. I didn’t rebuke my older daughter for coming down with the chicken pox, and I certainly didn’t ask my younger daughter to ask for forgiveness when she caught it from her older sister.

Jesus was not punished for our diseases. Rather, he endured the wrath of God that was provoked by our willful disobedience of the truth.

So what does it mean in Isaiah 53 and in 1 Peter 2 when it says that he bore our sicknesses and carried our pains and that by his stripes or wounds we are healed?

As I’ve already said, Christ “bore our sins” in the sense that he bore the wrath of God of which our sins were the cause.

In the case of Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2 we are being told that he carried our pains, not in the sense of personally experiencing stomach viruses and ulcers and earaches and gallstones as he hung on Calvary’s tree, but by enduring the wrath of God against that willful human wickedness which is ultimately the reason there are such things as pain and infirmity. By his death at his first coming he has laid the foundation for the ultimate over-throw and annihilation of all physical disease, which will occur with the resurrection of the body at his second coming. Thus it is theologically misleading to say that Jesus bore our sicknesses in the same way he bore our sins. Rather he paid the price of our sins in order that one day, when he returns to glorify his people, he may wholly do away with all of our sicknesses.

May we conclude that there is healing in the atonement? Of course! Were it not for Jesus making atonement for sin, we would have no hope of healing in any form, either now or later. The redemptive suffering of Jesus at Calvary is the foundation and source of every blessing, whether spiritual or physical.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is healing through the atonement rather than in the atonement, insofar as the atoning death of Jesus is the basis for God healing us. In this way we avoid suggesting that because of Jesus' death we are guaranteed healing in this life.

To ask, “Is there healing in the atonement?” is like asking, “Is there forgiveness of sins in the atonement?” or, “Is there fellowship with God in the atonement?” There is even a sense in which we may say that the Holy Spirit is in the atonement! We are told in John 14:16-17,26; 15:26; and especially 16:7-15, that the Holy Spirit’s present ministry is a result of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus.

Everything we receive from God finds its ultimate source in what Christ did for us on the cross. Therefore, the question is not whether our bodies receive healing because of the atonement of Christ, but when. We are forgiven of our sins now because of Christ’s atoning death, but we await the consummation of our deliverance from the presence of sin when Christ returns. We experience fellowship with God now because of Christ’s atoning death, but we await the consummation of that blessed relationship when Christ returns. We profit immensely now from the Spirit’s work in our hearts, but who would dare suggest that what the Holy Spirit is doing in this age is all that he will ever do? There is a glorious harvest reserved in heaven for us of which the present ministry of the Holy Spirit is merely the first fruits!

In other words, it is a serious mistake for us to think that every blessing Christ secured through his redemptive suffering will be ours now in its consummate form. All such blessings shall indeed be ours, let there be no mistake about that. But let us not expect, far less demand, that we now experience fully those blessings which God has clearly reserved for heaven in the age to come.

Life for the believer in this present age is a life of tension between the already and the not yet. We already have so very, very much. But we have not yet experienced it all. There is much yet to come. One of the “not yets” in Christian experience is the complete redemption and glorification of the body (see Phil. 3:20-21). Yes, we believe God heals today and that any healing that occurs is because of what Christ has accomplished in his death and resurrection, and yes, we will pray fervently for healing of the body in the present. But that doesn’t mean that because of what Christ accomplished then that we will always experience complete healing now.

We must also remember that frequently in Scripture the sinful condition of the soul is portrayed as analogous to a body suffering from various wounds. Forgiveness and restoration are therefore described in terms of a bodily healing. By his atoning death the great Physician has truly “healed” our hearts. We were continually straying like sheep, but by the redemptive grace of Jesus we have been enabled to return to the shepherd and guardian of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Thus the context of 1 Peter 2:24 clearly tells us that it is primarily spiritual healing from the disease of sin, not physical restoration of the body, that the apostle has in mind.

The sickness was that of having strayed from God. The disease was that of having departed from him. The healing provided by Christ, therefore, is bringing us back to God and restoring our relationship with him.

This is clearly the case in our passage when we take note of the word “for” with which v. 25 begins. The word “for” or “because” indicates that the “healing” in v. 24 is from the punishment we deserved for the wandering in v. 25.

In the next article we’ll take note of how this is made clear from what Paul says in Romans 8:1.

wilson's cessationism

Doug Wilson is my favorite cessationist. He has a brilliant mind (which is why I cower here rather than confront him directly) and yet he continues to make the case (contrary to his intent) for continuationism. Here he writes on 1 Cor 12.8-11 and without blinking or Scripture purports:

My understanding is that the gift of languages and interpretation together should be considered the equivalent to prophecy, which means that this gift is no longer extant. 

I believe that the gift of miracle-working has ceased, not that miracles have ceased. I believe that the gift of healing has ceased, not that healing has ceased. And so on.

I find that odd ... but that aside, here is his post:

“For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” (1 Cor. 12:8-11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

Paul’s point here in this passage is to point out the fact that multiple workings are all proceeding from one source, which means that these multiple gifts are all meant to work toward one unified purpose or end. He does this by saying the Spirit does x, the same Spirit does y, and the same Spirit does z.

The first gift is the word of wisdom (v. 8), and the second mentioned gift is the word of knowledge (v. 8). A third gift is that of faith (v. 9), and a fourth is the gift of healing (v. 9). Another man can work miracles (v. 10), yet another can prophesy (v. 10), and another can discern spirits (v. 10). Someone else has the gift of various languages (v. 10), and someone else can interpret (v. 10). But the one source of the diverse gifts is the one Spirit, who exercises His sovereignty by dispensing these gifts as He sees fit.

We do not know precisely what the gifts of wisdom and knowledge were, but judging from the face value of the words, it would be something like a timely statement of what the people should do (wisdom) and what the people should know (knowledge). The gift of faith appears to be the gift of remarkable faith, out of the ordinary faith—because every Christian has faith. It would be the gift of believing for particular things, as George Mueller had.

The gift of healing is possessed by someone who can heal someone else, with power draining from him as it happens—as when the woman with the hemorrhaging touched the Lord and was healed. The gift of healing should be distinguished from answered prayer healing. The gift of healing is not possessed by anyone today, and neither is the gift of miracles (2 Cor. 12:12Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Prophecy proper is not possessed by anyone either, although elements of the prophetic office are still present in preaching. We do not have anyone today who can write new Scripture. But we do have men who can speak in the name of the Lord.

A person who can discern spirits would be necessary in a service when people were speaking prophetically in a service under the influence of a spirit—Paul himself gave guidance on discerning spirits at the beginning of this chapter (v. 3). My understanding is that the gift of languages and interpretation together should be considered the equivalent to prophecy, which means that this gift is no longer extant.

Now some will no doubt object to all the “cessationism,” and say that they themselves have spoken in tongues or have been in services where that has happened. What about that? It reminds me of Mark Twain’s response when asked if he believed in infant baptism. “Believe in it? I have seen it done!” My understanding of the gift of tongues is that it is the gift of languages—with a vocabulary, grammar, syntax, meaning, the whole deal. We are too easily impressed with or persuaded by what could be called Beach Boys glossolalia—ba ba ba ba ba ran.

Having offended one half of the church, let me proceed to offend the other. But I mean well.

The fact that I believe that this kind of gifted authority was vested in, or was resident in, particular saints prior to the close of the canon, and is not operative today in the same way, does not mean that I believe the Holy Spirit died, or that God does not answer prayers, or that He is not actively at work in the world in visible and remarkable ways. I believe that the gift of miracle-working has ceased, not that miracles have ceased. I believe that the gift of healing has ceased, not that healing has ceased. And so on. What I believe has been taken out of the picture is any genuine spiritual gift that would provide anyone with a cogent scriptural argument that would require us to believe that person to be an apostle.

telling god

" ... the greatest sin of the evangelical church was telling God what He could not do." ~ Terry Virgo quoting Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

spirit-formed community

From Trevin Wax:

The power of Pentecost makes for a fantastic story. Rushing wind, flaming tongues, and the proclamation of a fisherman turned evangelist calling people to repent and be baptized.

But don’t miss how Acts 2 ends. The power of the Spirit that flowed through the apostles’ proclamation is the power that gathers people into a new community.

So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers. Then fear came over everyone, and many wonders and signs were being performed through the apostles. Now all the believers were together and had everything in common. So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. And every day they devoted themselves [to meeting] together in the temple complex, and broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to them those who were being saved.

Evangelicals in the West tend to think of the gospel as just a transaction between the individual and God. Just me and Jesus, thank you. Of course, salvation is indeed about an individual being reconciled to God. The Spirit ushers us into a restored relationship with the living God, an intimate knowledge and love of Him who loved us first.

But we mustn’t leave out the result of the gospel’s proclamation in Acts 2. The cross restores our relationship to God, and the result is restored relationship with others. Vertical reconciliation makes possible horizontal reconciliation, and the horizontal dimension then magnifies the vertical.

Here’s an example. Ephesians 1 is all about God’s magnificent plan of salvation. Ephesians 2:1-9 is all about God’s magnificent plan of saving individual sinners like you and me. But the rest of Ephesians 2 and 3 (and 4-6, for that matter!) is about how God’s magnificent plan results in the creation of a renewed people – bringing together former enemies, Jew and Gentile, into one family. Jesus is our peace.

The Holy Spirit not only gives us power, not only leads us to proclamation, and not only fulfills God’s promise. He forms a new people.

What Kind of People?

• That’s where Acts 2 gets most interesting. The characteristics of this new people reflect the work of the Holy Spirit. What are they doing?
• They are devoted to the apostles’ teaching. This is a Word-centered group of people, aren’t they? No surprise there. The Spirit inspired the apostle’s teaching.
• They are devoted to fellowship. They love each other. No surprise there. The Spirit of love has been poured into their hearts.
• They break bread together at the Communion table. No surprise there. Through the Spirit, Christ is present with us when we gather and proclaim His death through the Lord’s Supper.
• They are devoted to praying together. No surprise there. The Spirit is the One who groans within us when our words run out.
• They are marked by fear of the Lord. No surprise there. God has given us the Spirit of all wisdom, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
• They are marked out by witnessing the signs and wonders of the apostles. No surprise there. We too have seen God’s wonders. We’ve seen Him rescue people from sin, we’ve seen Him heal people of sickness in answer to our prayers, we’ve seen Him soften the hardest heart.
• They are willing to share their belongings and give to one another. No surprise. The Spirit of generosity has been poured out on God’s people.
• They show hospitality, going from house to house. No surprise. This is the Spirit who welcomes us into the throne room of grace.
• They are filled with gladness and simplicity. No surprise. This is the Spirit, the Comforter who brings us joy in God.
• They praise God. No surprise. The Spirit lifts up Jesus, and whenever we proclaim Him as Lord, it’s through the work of the Spirit.
• They find favor with all the people. No surprise. The Spirit fills us with love and self-giving devotion to others, so that they may see our good works and give glory to our Father in heaven.

The Gospel of the Promised Spirit

The Holy Spirit is part of the promise of the gospel.

He gives us power to fulfill Christ’s mission.

• He leads us to proclamation of Christ’s gospel.
• [my addition - He leads us to proclamation and demonstration of the Gospel of the Kingdom]
• He fulfills God’s promise of regeneration.
• And He forms a new people who know and love God, and overflow with love for others.

the spirit-filled church

Not perfect but a pretty good cut at what a Spirit-filled Church looks like by Eric Davis:

Church advertisements can be interesting. I’ve seen things like, “Always an open door,” one that advertised a concealed weapons class, and “You have a friend request from Jesus: Accept? Ignore?” But one that confused me the first time I saw it was “Spirit-filled.” What does that mean? And are only some churches Spirit-filled? Or all of them? Or partially filled? What’s the difference between a Spirit-filled and non-Spirit-filled church?

Generally, the advertisement means that the Holy Spirit’s power and presence are observable in that local church. Praise God if that’s true. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with such advertising. But, assuming accurate advertising, what ought we expect from such a church? What will that look like?

Here are 11 evidences of the Spirit’s power and presence in a local church:

1. A focus on the biblical Person and work of Christ.

Previewing the New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit, Jesus indicated the christocentric focus he would have:

John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name…”

John 15:26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me.”

John 16:14 “He will glorify Me…”

Beyond this, Paul elaborated that central to discerning the Holy Spirit’s presence in someone is an affirming and embracing of the lordship of the biblical Jesus (1 Cor 12:3).

J.I. Packer says it this way:

“When floodlighting is well done, the floodlights are so placed that you do not see them; you are not in fact supposed to see where the light is coming from; what you are meant to see is just the building on which the floodlights are trained. The intended effect is to make it visible when otherwise it would not be seen for the darkness, and to maximize its dignity by throwing all its details into relief so that you see it properly. This perfectly illustrates the Spirit’s new covenant role. He is, so to speak, the hidden floodlight shining on the Savior” (Keeping in Step with the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God, 57).

The Holy Spirit fills a people to floodlight Christ in all they do and say.

We can take this a step further. Since Christ is about building and blessing one institution (Matt 16:18), the Spirit will be likewise. We should expect to see him busy as Christ’s agent to facilitate that building and blessing. So, the Holy Spirit is at home in the local church because Jesus loves his church.

All that to say, the Spirit-filled church will floodlight, from many angles, the biblical Jesus.

2. A congregation converted to Christ.

Since the birth of the church by the Holy Spirit, the most powerful thing he does is convert dead sinners to faith in Christ. No one in the universe except him has the power to bring spiritual life.

Scripture pictures conversion in ways beyond anything like a decision, prayer, or act of the human will. Instead, it’s pictured, for example, as a birth (John 3:5) and a brittle bone pile coming to life (Ezek 37:1-14).

So when the Spirit fills a congregation, expect to see the miracle of spiritual life in that place. People will be genuinely saved. Don’t take for granted when you see it; even a church of 10 people converted to Christ. What you’re seeing is a colossal display of power; the greatest in the universe. It’s a glorious sight. And you can’t miss it anymore than you can miss the wind. A Spirit-filled church is filled with regenerate people.

3. A lot of godly people.

Even if you’re not a dendrologist, identifying a particular fruit tree is simple: look at its fruit. So it is with identifying the presence and power of the Spirit. His fruit (singular) in those he indwells is: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22-23).

Along those lines, humility evidences a Spirit-filled church. In Philippians 2:1-8, humility (on our part), has the idea of, out of response to the incarnation and atoning work of Christ, accurately seeing onself in light of God, resulting in a servant’s mindset towards others. Thus, true humility is not possible apart from conversion to Christ, which is not possible without the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, Spirit-filling will look like a mutual yielding to one another in a congregation out of reverence for Jesus (Eph 5:21).

To this, you could add holiness (being the Holy Spirit, those he indwells will bear his mark of personal holiness) and thankfulness (Eph 5:20, Col 3:17).

Overall, a Spirit-filled church will have the mark of godliness.

4. A love for God’s word.

Ephesians 5:18 and Colossians 3:16 are parallel passages where the ideas of being “filled with the Spirit” and the “word of Christ” dwelling “richly” within are synonymous. So, a Spirit-filled church will look like a church where Scripture richly abides and is at home.

Practically that will look like many things: a hunger for the word, a love for hearing and reading the word, a desire to discuss the word, a reverence for the word, a church governed by the word, and a people being transformed by the word. It will look like a priority to be equipped by the word over being entertained by the world.

Though some biblical truth will be piercing and hard to swallow, Spirit-filled people will not be saying, in response, “Umm, this is a hard saying, who can listen to it?” Though they may wrestle, that Spirit-filled congregation, will be moved and humbled by the Spirit to say, “Where else shall we go? These are the words of eternal life.” The Holy Spirit will tame the otherwise boisterous flesh to embrace what he has said in Scripture.

5. A love for biblical preaching.

One thing that is obvious about that newly, Holy Spirit-hatched people in Acts is that they loved biblical preaching. In the early church, it appears that there was biblical preaching going on about every day (Acts 2:42-47). Further, when the Spirit decided what to preserve for his people in Acts, a large chunk of it was biblical preaching (Acts 2:14-36, 3:12-26, 7:2-53,10:34-43, 13:16-41, 17:22-31, 20:18-35). Combine that with the Eph 5:18/Col 3:16 idea, and we can say that the Spirit-filled church will be a place where the pulpit is central. You can be sure that the Spirit is powerfully at work where the people crave the bible unpacked and doctrines explained; where there is a love for the explanation, illustration, and application of Scripture.

A Spirit-filled church loves large doses of biblical preaching.

6. A lot of people serving.

In Paul’s pneumatological tome to the Corinthians, he makes a telling statement regarding true spiritual gifts: “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7) and “edification of the church” (1 Cor 14:12, cf. v. 26). So, one certain expression of the Spirit will be people actively working to build up the church.

Also, many instances in Acts where God’s people were “filled with the Spirit” are revealing. In most of those cases (cf. Acts 2:4, 4:8, 4:31, 13:9), Spirit-gifts were exercised powerfully to both put Christ in lights and edify people.

So, the power and presence of the Spirit in a local church will look like an army of servants doing the work of the ministry, unprodded by people, but in light of Christ’s love.

The Spirit-filled church is the church full of people serving in many ways for the common good.

7. A humble focus on conviction and repentance of sin.

This is one of those unmistakable evidences of the Spirit’s power. You will never hear your flesh say to you, “I delight to cause you to see, hate, and turn from your indwelling sin so that you become more like Jesus.” The flesh cherishes sin like a good mom cherishes her newborn. It loathes the idea of anything putting it to death. And that is precisely what Jesus sends the Spirit to do. Whatever we say about the Holy Spirit, this is certain: he puts sin to death in everyone he indwells (Rom 8:13).

Sin is that thing that deceives, wrecks, kills, and damns humans. Yet nothing and no one has the power to execute it but the Holy Spirit. So, since Christ cares deeply for the well-being of his people, he sends in the big-guns to slay our indwelling sin. And when the Spirit lands, conviction and repentance will signify that the war is on and God is winning.

What the Spirit will do is enable knowledge of personal sin, hatred of it, sorrow over it because of its offense against God, confession of it, and turning from it (Ezek 36:31, John 16:8). But he doesn’t stop there. In those healthy moments of conviction, he floodlights Christ so that the repentant see, embrace, and rejoice in him and his overwhelmingly adequate righteousness for us.

So then, the Spirit-filled church will look like a people humbly confessing their sin without fearing one another, sorrowfully discussing their sin without fleeing one another, intentionally turning from their sin without isolating one another, and always ending up at the cross.

The Spirit-filled church has a humble focus on the conviction and repentance of sin.

8. An atmosphere where it’s the norm to lovingly confront sin.

This is to be expected since the Spirit will employ those means of putting sin to death which he has spoken in his word. One of those means is other Spirit-indwelt people coming alongside of us.

Following his explanation of the Spirit in Galatians 5, Paul exhorts believers to gently address each others’ sin for the purpose of restoration on the basis that they are Spirit-indwelt (Gal 6:1-3)

In a Spirit-filled church, then, this will look like an atmosphere where sin is safe but not safe. It’s safe, in the sense that there is a loving, family-like trust among one another where we can be confronted if necessary, but know that we will not be condemned. However, sin is unsafe because it will necessarily be confronted and eradicated by the Spirit.

A Spirit-filled church is one in which it’s the norm to lovingly confront sin.

9. A place where the flesh cannot last long.

Overall, the Spirit-filled church will be a place where the flesh can run, but it can’t hide. Christ cares too much for his church to have it any other way. This means that doctrine which is fleshly will be exposed and eradicated. Methods of doing ministry which are fleshly will eventually be discovered and destroyed. People who are fleshly will only be able to tolerate a Spirit-filled church for so long. If they are not converted by the power of the Spirit, they will typically leave. That’s because the flesh hates nothing more than the Spirit. It won’t bow to it. And even if it wanted to, it could never do so (Rom 8:7-8, Gal 5:17). Consequently, the flesh will be appropriately cornered in a Spirit-filled church. One of two things will result: repentance by the power of the Holy Spirit, or fleeing to a place more conducive to sheltering the flesh.

10. An orderliness and intelligibility when gathered.

Much of the spiritual spanking Paul administers in the first letter to the Corinthians, as far as chapters 12-14 go, boils down to his desire that they focus on love, edification, and orderliness. Among other things, when they gather, it’s to be done in an orderly manner, where unintelligibility is absent and comprehension is present. That is what would reflect a presence and power of the Spirit. And it’s to be done in “all the churches” (v. 33). Though the Corinthians might disagree, so far from hindering the power of the Spirit, an orderliness when gathered invites and evidences his power.

A Spirit-filled gathering will be orderly and intelligible.

11. A desire to exist in unity with each other.

The Spirit-filled congregation will be one who prioritizes unity in the name of Christ (Eph 4:3-4). A refreshing instinct to do so will be present. Consequently that which produces true biblical unity will be visible. For example: humility, believing the best about one another, looking for common ground, serving each other, a desire for relationships, grieving over and attempting to biblically solve division in the congregation, and an overall sharing of life among people with many surface differences.

Not only that, but there will be a desire to unite with Spirit-filled people from the past. The Spirit is eternal; the same God doing the same things generally as he carries out our Lord’s building plans for his church. As such, the Spirit-filled congregation has an instinct to actively unite with others in church history. They’re not consumed with originality, but faithfulness to what the Spirit has been doing; being another link in a long line of pneumatological fidelity.

A Spirit-filled congregation carries a refreshing desire for unity in Christ.

We could add many things to this list: an assurance that we are God’s children by the finished work of Christ (Rom 8:15-17), a perseverance in suffering (Rom 5:2-5), a cheerful diligence to obey God’s commands (Ezek 36:27, Rom 8:4), and a delight to sing biblically-sound songs with one another (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16). All that to say, when the Holy Spirit is present in a local church, it’s going to be gloriously obvious. When he blows through a congregation, it will be unmistakable: he will gather a converted people whose lives are being enriched in Scripture such that they love, serve, and repent with the result that Christ is put in lights.