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.

starbucks and james

From David Rudd:

"You can learn a lot more from listening than you can from talking. Find someone with whom you don't agree in the slightest and ask them to explain themselves at length. Then take a seat, shut your mouth, and don't argue back. It's physically impossible to listen with your mouth open."

-- John Moe, Radio host and author of Conservatize Me, From Starbucks cup #280

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry..."

-- James, Brother of Jesus and pastor in Jerusalem, From James 1:19

no limit

Alec Motyer in The Message of Philippians:

Christ turned his back, voluntarily, deliberately, and decisively, upon all that belonged to personal glory, and all that conduced to personal gain. He recognized no limit to the extent to which His obedience to God in self-humbling must go. Whatever he found in himself to be expendable, he spent. While anything was left which could be poured forth, he poured it forth. Nothing was too small to give, or too great. This is the mind and the life which is commended to us by the example of Christ and approved by signal acts of God. 

(via)

gospel indicatives and imperatives

Sinclair Ferguson in Our Holiness: The Father’s Purpose and the Son’s Purchase:

The great gospel imperatives to holiness are ever rooted in indicatives of grace that are able to sustain the weight of those imperatives. The Apostles do not make the mistake that’s often made in Christian ministry. [For the Apostles] the indicatives are more powerful than the imperatives in gospel preaching. So often in our preaching our indicatives are not strong enough, great enough, holy enough, or gracious enough to sustain the power of the imperatives. And so our teaching on holiness becomes a whip or a rod to beat our people’s backs because we’ve looked at the New Testament and that’s all we ourselves have seen.

We’ve seen our own failure and we’ve seen the imperatives to holiness and we’ve lost sight of the great indicatives of the gospel that sustain those imperatives. Woven into the warp and woof of the New Testament’s exposition of what it means for us to be holy is the great groundwork that the self-existent, thrice holy, triune God has — in Himself, by Himself and for Himself — committed Himself and all three Persons of His being to bringing about the holiness of His own people. This is the Father’s purpose, the Son’s purchase and the Spirit’s ministry.

(via)

world-view clash

Summary - how do we know anything at all?

Here is Al Mohler's take on the Nye-Ham debate:

Last night’s debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham attracted a huge international audience and no shortage of controversy—even before it began. Bill Nye, whose main media presence is as “The Science Guy,” and Ken Ham, co-founder of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum, squared off in a true debate over one of the most important questions that the human mind can contemplate. That is no small achievement.

I enjoyed a front row seat at the debate, which took place even as a major winter storm raged outside, dumping considerable amounts of snow and ice and causing what the local police announced as a “Class Two” weather emergency. Inside the Creation Museum there was quite enough heat, and the debate took place without a hitch. Thankfully, it also took place without acrimony.

The initial controversy about the debate centered in criticism of Bill Nye for even accepting the invitation. Many evolutionary scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, refuse to debate the issue, believing that any public debate offers legitimacy to those who deny evolution. Nye was criticized by many leading evolutionists, who argued publicly that nothing good could come of the debate.

Interestingly, this points back to the famous debates over evolution that took place in nineteenth century England, when Anglican churchmen faced early evolutionary scientists in (mostly) civil public exchanges. Back then, it was the churchmen who were criticized by their peers for participation in the debate. Now, the table has turned, indicating something of the distance between the intellectual conditions then and now.

Of course, Bill Nye might have felt some moral obligation to debate the question, since he had launched a unilateral attack on creationist parents in a video that went viral last year. In that video, Nye told creationist parents:

“[I]f you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”

But if Nye had launched the attack, he did not arrive at the debate in a defensive mode. A protege of the late Carl Sagan and the current CEO of the Planetary Society, Nye was in full form last night, wearing his customary bow-tie, and immaculately dressed in a very expensive suit. He took notes with a very fine writing instrument. I like his style.

Ken Ham is a veteran debater on the issue of origins, and he was clearly prepared for the debate. Ham’s arguments were tight and focused, and his demeanor was uniformly calm and professional. The format allowed for a full expression of both arguments, along with spirited exchanges and questions submitted from the audience. What the 150 minute event lacked was any requirement that the debaters answer each other’s questions. That would have changed the way the debate concluded.

The central question of the debate was this: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham stuck to the question tenaciously. Nye, on the other hand, tried to personalize the debate and kept changing the question from creation to “Ken Ham’s creationism.” Ham was unfazed, and kept to his argument.

As the debate began, it was clear that Ham and Nye do not even agree on definitions. The most friction on definition came when Nye rejected Ham’s distinction between “historical science” and “observational science” out of hand. Nye maintained his argument that science is a unitary method, without any distinction between historical and observational modes. Ham pressed his case that science cannot begin without making certain assumptions about the past, which cannot be observed. Furthermore, Ham rightly insisted that observational science generally does not require any specific commitment to a model of historical science. In other words, both evolutionists and creationists do similar experimental science, and sometimes even side-by-side.

Nye’s main presentation contained a clear rejection of biblical Christianity. At several points in the debate, he dismissed the Bible’s account of Noah and the ark as unbelievable. Oddly, he even made this a major point in his most lengthy argument. As any informed observer would have anticipated, Nye based his argument on the modern consensus and went to the customary lines of evidence, from fossils to ice rods. Ham argued back with fossil and geological arguments of his own. Those portions of the debate did not advance the arguments much past where they were left in the late nineteenth century, with both sides attempting to keep score by rocks and fossils.

In this light, the debate proved both sides right on one central point: If you agreed with Bill Nye you would agree with his reading of the evidence. The same was equally true for those who entered the room agreeing with Ken Ham; they would agree with his interpretation of the evidence.

That’s because the argument was never really about ice rods and sediment layers. It was about the most basic of all intellectual presuppositions: How do we know anything at all? On what basis do we grant intellectual authority? Is the universe self-contained and self-explanatory? Is there a Creator, and can we know him?

On those questions, Ham and Nye were separated by infinite intellectual space. They shared the stage, but they do not live in the same intellectual world. Nye is truly committed to a materialistic and naturalistic worldview. Ham is an evangelical Christian committed to the authority of the Bible. The clash of ultimate worldview questions was vividly displayed for all to see.

When asked how matter came to exist and how consciousness arose, Nye responded simply and honestly: “I don’t know.” Responding to the same questions, Ham went straight to the Bible, pointing to the Genesis narrative as a full and singular answer to these questions. Nye went on the attack whenever Ham cited the Bible, referring to the implausibility of believing what he kept describing as “Ken Ham’s interpretation of a 3,000 year old book translated into American English.”

To Bill Nye, the idea of divine revelation is apparently nonsensical. He ridiculed the very idea.

This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Both men said no. Neither was willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change their minds. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment.

But the single most defining moments in the debate came as Bill Nye repeatedly cited the “reasonable man” argument in his presentation and responses. He cited Adolphe Quetelet’s famed l’homme moyen—“a reasonable man”—as the measure of his intellectual authority. Writing in 1835, Quetelet, a French intellectual, made his “reasonable man” famous. The “reasonable man” is a man of intellect and education and knowledge who can judge evidence and arguments and function as an intellectual authority on his own two feet. The “reasonable man” is a truly modern man. Very quickly, jurists seized on the “reasonable man” to define the law and lawyers used him to make arguments before juries. A “reasonable man” would interpret the evidence and make a reasoned judgment, free from intellectual pressure.

Bill Nye repeatedly cited the reasonable man in making his arguments. He is a firm believer in autonomous human reason and the ability of the human intellect to solve the great problems of existence without any need of divine revelation. He spoke of modern science revealing “what we all can know” as it operates on the basis of natural laws. As Nye sees it, Ken Ham has a worldview, but Nye does not. He referred to “Ken Ham’s worldview,” but claimed that science merely provides knowledge. He sees himself as the quintessential “reasonable man,” and he repeatedly dismissed Christian arguments as “not reasonable.”

In an unexpected turn, near the end of the event, Nye even turned to make an argument against Christianity on grounds of theodicy. He asked Ham if it was “reasonable” to believe that God had privileged a personal revelation that was not equally accessible to all. Nye’s weakest argument had to do with his claim—made twice—that billions of religious people accept modern science. He provided a chart that included vast millions of adherents of other world religions and announced that they are religious but accept modern science. That is nonsense, of course. At least it is nonsense if he meant to suggest that these billions believe in evolution. That is hardly the case. Later, he lowered his argument to assert that these billions of people use modern technology. So, of course, do creationists. There are few facilities in the world more high-tech than the Creation Museum.

Nye is clearly not a fan of theistic evolution, since he argued that a purely natural argument should be quite enough for the “reasonable man.” He seemed to affirm a methodological agnosticism, since he sees the question of a “higher power” or “spiritual being” to be one of little intellectual consequence. He did argue that nature is a closed system and that natural selection can allow for absolutely no supernatural interference or influence. In this respect, he sounded much like Stephen Hawking, who has argued that God may exist, but that there is nothing for him to do.

Ken Ham is a Young Earth Creationist (as am I), but the larger argument was over worldviews, and the debate revealed the direct collision between evolution and the recognition of any historical authority within Genesis 1-11. As if to make that clear, in making one of his closing arguments, Bill Nye actually went back to cite “this problem of the ark.”

The ark is not the real problem; autonomous human reason is. Bill Nye is a true believer in human reason and the ability of modern science to deliver us. Humanity is just “one germ away” from extinction, he said. But science provides him with the joy of discovery and understanding.

The problem with autonomous human reason is made clear by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 1:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Rom 1:18-23 ESV).

The problem with human reason is that it, along with every other aspect of our humanity, was corrupted by the fall. This is what theologians refer to as the “noetic effects of the fall.” We have not lost the ability to know all things, but we have lost the ability to know them on our own authority and power. We are completely dependent upon divine revelation for the answers to the most important questions of life. Our sin keeps us from seeing what is right before our eyes in nature. We are dependent upon the God who loves us enough to reveal himself to us—and to give us his Word.

As it turns out, the reality and authority of divine revelation, more than any other issue, was what the debate last night was all about. As the closing statements made very clear, Ken Ham understood that fact, but Bill Nye did not.

The central issue last night was really not the age of the earth or the claims of modern science. The question was not really about the ark or sediment layers or fossils. It was about the central worldview clash of our times, and of any time: the clash between the worldview of the self-declared “reasonable man” and the worldview of the sinner saved by grace.

ham and guy

Thoughtful insight by Mike Wittmer (I also did not watch the debate):

I did not see the debate last night between Ken Ham and The Science Guy, but I did see many posts on Twitter and Facebook and read the USA Today story in this morning’s paper. Many Christians rightly point out that Ham wrongly thinks the only orthodox way to read Genesis 1 is the way he reads it, but in their (often scornful) posts they may be missing a more fundamental point.

USA Today quotes Bill Nye saying to Ham, “Your assertion that there is some difference between the natural laws that I observe today and the natural laws of 4,000 years ago is extraordinary and unsettling.”

This is roughly the same point that Abraham Kuyper made 100 years ago. Kuyper said there are two kinds of scientists in the world, normalists and abnormalists. Normalists such as Bill Nye believe the world they see behaves in the same way it always has. Abnormalists believe there has been a cataclysmic, catastrophic Fall that has dramatically damaged our world. We don’t know all the ways the Fall has changed our world, but we must believe it did.

Poor Bill Nye. He is observing an accident scene and doesn’t even know there has been an accident. And poor us, if we think that our more enlightened reading of Genesis 1 will earn any more respect from him. If you are a Christian who believes what the Bible says about a historical Adam and a historical Fall, then though you may not agree with Ham’s overly narrow reading, you must still agree that he is on your team. He may be naïve on some of his details, but his theological instincts are Kuyperian (which is a sophisticated way of saying he’s right).

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.

penal substitution

Sam Storms on JI Packer on Penal Substitution:

In the on-going debate about the nature of Christ’s atoning death, some have insisted that penal substitution is only one model among many others. My contention has always been that it is more than one of many models and is in fact the central and controlling foundation for everything the atonement accomplished on behalf of sinners. Without it, there is no gospel and there is no salvation. I was pleased to come across this statement by J. I. Packer in which he affirms precisely the same point.

Packer proceeds to explain how penal substitution theologically explains everything else regarding the saving efficacy of Christ’s death. Note the following sequence.

“What did Christ’s death accomplish? It redeemed us to God – purchased us at a price, that is, from captivity to sin for the freedom of life with God (Tit 2:14; Rev 5:9). How did it do that? By being a blood-sacrifice for our sins (Eph 1:7; Heb 9:11-15). How did that sacrifice have its redemptive effect? By making peace, achieving reconciliation, and so ending enmity between God and ourselves (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18-20; Eph 2:13-16; Col 1:19-20). How did Christ’s death make peace? By being a propitiation, an offering appointed by God himself to dissolve his judicial wrath against us by removing our sins from his sight (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10). How did the Savior’s self-sacrifice have this propitiatory effect? By being a vicarious enduring of the retribution declared due to us by God’s own law (Gal 3:13; Col 2:13-14) – in other words, by penal substitution” (416, "The Atonement in the Life of the Christian").

The inescapable fact is that if Christ’s death was not of the nature of a penal substitutionary sacrifice, we simply have nothing in the way of good news to share with a lost and dying world.

don't give up

Great post by Jason Helopoulos ... some tough talk, but great post nonetheless:

Even before the Grammy Awards showcased Macklemore singing “Same Love” and Queen Latifah presiding over a “same sex couple’s wedding” ceremony, I had most of this blog written as the topic has been on my mind for quite some time.

I am not a Kuyperian or a Neo-Kuyperian, but there are certain watershed cultural issues for every generation of Christians; issues in which they cannot be silent. For our generation, abortion and homosexuality are key watershed issues. They are watershed issues, because abortion snatches away life and homosexuality reaches out and grabs hold of death.

The average Evangelical Christian continues to believe we should speak out against the acceptance of abortion in our culture. And the pro-abortion forces have been losing ground over the past five years. No doubt, much of that is due to the church’s resolve to stand against this agenda. However, it seems to me that in the past few years, Evangelical Christians in the United States have increasingly and passively grown in their acceptance of homosexuality. This should concern all of us.

I understand the discouragement. Our culture has done a quick “about face” on this issue. It was just yesterday that the Ellen DeGeneres sitcom announced its main character was homosexual (1997) and a firestorm erupted. Now, it seems almost “normal” to have Queen Latifah presiding over a “wedding” ceremony of a homosexual couple. We cannot let it feel “normal.” Make no mistake, homosexuality may be the issue of the day. It brings secularism to the forefront like few other agendas and it undermines the foundation of family, church, and the Scriptures.

Therefore, it should concern us when Christians throw their hands up and declare with finality that the homosexuality debate in this country is over–the battle has been waged and lost. This agenda has fooled us into thinking it is here to stay and must be adopted and adapted to. It has bullied us into believing we cannot continue to speak out against the acceptance of practicing this sin in our culture. Too many denominations, Christian schools, churches, and individual Christians are raising the white flag. This is something we cannot and must not do.

Homosexuality is a matter of extreme importance to us. Make no mistake, this is a gospel issue. When our culture embraces something that sends people to hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:10) then it must matter to us. We cannot roll over and play dead. We cannot give up and just let the issue go. We are compelled to continue to engage our culture on this issue and challenge its wayward course. We are not doing this because we are feverish to return to the 1940′s or 1950′s or because we are a “backwards people.” Rather, we are a people looking forward to eternity and that is our motivation. Neither are we seeking to engage in this cultural battle because we are haters. We do so because we are lovers of men and God. We do not endeavor to be sticks in the mud, who refuse to change. We, of all people, know the value of change as we have been brought from death to life. However, we are only willing to change where we are freed by the Scriptures to do so. We are a people bound by the Word of God; our conscience is constrained by it, and from this position we cannot move.

We must be bold and courageous in our day. Not rabble rousers, but valiant and resolute according to our convictions. Our starting place, should be to disapprove of homosexual practice, knowing that we do so in the context of our own sexual fallen state. We are not haughty. We are not decrying the sins of others and ignoring our own, but neither are we willing to sit silently when our culture calls that which is evil “good.”

Let us resolve, that as we continue to speak against homosexuality and its acceptance in our culture, we will do so winsomely and lovingly; yet, we are also committed to doing so clearly. In our pulpits, in our conversations around the water cooler, with our children, or in simple talks over the fence with our neighbors, we will be clear that homosexual practice is a sin. We will not attempt to separate love and truth. A careful guard against the subtle language of “gay” and “gay marriage” should be in place. Neither one of those terms should be used in our discourse about the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual union. There is nothing “gay” or God-honoring about the homosexual lifestyle, and it is not a God-ordained marriage when two homosexuals join together in a “state approved marriage,” even if it is a monogamous and committed relationship. We, as a people of the Word, know the importance of language and words, and it is crucial we give clear articulation of God’s purpose and plan for sex and marriage.

Even as we exercise our voice, we need a generation of Christians who are willing to do even more; willing to be courageous enough to minister with compassion and truth to the homosexual community. We need brothers and sisters in Christ, who know the depths of grace and are deliberate in ministering to others by that grace. We must raise an army of men and women, who are compelled, in all humility, to seek to understand the homosexual struggle and enter into relationships that will challenge, encourage, and hold friends and loved ones accountable. We need elders and pastors with a vision to establish churches where a person struggling with same-sex attraction or even homosexual practices are lovingly warned, discipled, and given care. We need to continue to declare that homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin, but that repentance is called for. We must be clear in our application of theology that identifying the sinful desire and abstaining from such practices does not negate personhood or necessitate the deprivation of joy.

Above all, we need to pray. We need to pray for those in our churches who struggle with same-sex attraction, for those who have given into this temptation and sin, and for the salvation of those who are trapped in a lifestyle that leads to death. We need to pray that our society would alter its present course on this issue and never look back.

It may be an uphill battle, but our God moves mountains. We serve a God who can change things in an instant. Does it seem impossible? Our God majors in the impossible. May it take a miracle? There is good news, we serve a God who performs miracles. We cannot roll over and play dead on this issue. It is too important. It is an issue with eternal implications for the souls of men and women. We believe in the power of the gospel, so let us believe it is good news even in the midst of this debate, and declare it without shrinking. May God turn the tide and do a mighty work of change in our generation, for His praise and His glory. He can do it. Never lose hope.

love of god's power

Great post by Jonathan Parnell:

God is faithful. We’ve all heard these words.

We’ve read them, said them, and sung them. And we’ve felt them.

God’s faithfulness is a palatable experience of his love. It’s his love tasted and seen inour history. It’s the mechanics of his love wired to fulfill his promises for our good. In fact, God’s faithfulness and his steadfast love are so closely intertwined that in Psalm 33 they’re basically the same.

The word of the Lᴏʀᴅ is upright,
and all his work is done in faithfulness.
He loves righteousness and justice;
the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lᴏʀᴅ. (Psalm 33:4–5)

Verse 4 tells us, “All his work is done in faithfulness.” All his work, says the psalmist. Everything that God does is done in faithfulness. Every move God makes in this universe is about what he’s said he’d be for his people. And it’s so pervasive that we’re told in verse 5, “The earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lᴏʀᴅ.”

The two statements, “All his work . . .” and “The earth is full . . .” make the same point in two different ways with one thing clear: God’s faithfulness is everywhere. It’s boundless and unending.

And perhaps uncomfortable.

God’s Kind of Love

See, a lot of times when folks talk about God’s love they mean something different from what the Bible shows us. Let’s call it pop-love. It’s the kind that’s manageable, not mighty — the kind that makes me feel special, not God look great. Most people want love, for sure, but love in their terms, not God’s.

Don’t miss the greater message of this psalm, captured in verses 4–5.

The uprightness of God’s word parallels his love for righteousness and justice. This refers to God’s sovereign authority and it’s inseparable from the love part.

Actually, if we continue reading Psalm 33 we won’t see anything about love again until verse 18. But what do we see? We see that God speaks worlds into being. We see that his mere breath fills the heavens, that whatever he says happens, that whatever he plans comes to be. We see that he sees everything, that he fashions the hearts of men and watches every move we make (verses 6–17). We see his power.

Sovereign Faithfulness

The psalmist lifts his pen to celebrate God’s love and he talks about God’s power. And he knows what he’s doing. As unsettling as this power might be for some, the psalmist is determined that this is precisely what makes the love so good.

Without power, love is only sentiment. It’s nice, don’t get me wrong, and it can probably produce some positive feelings, but we need more from our Maker. Positive feelings don’t free us from condemnation, nor can they raise anything from the dead. If God’s goodwill toward his people really counts it must be sovereignly willed. It doesn’t matter how good he feels about us if he can’t really do anything about it.

The aim of Psalm 33 is to say that he can — that he does.

All that power is the power of his love — and the love of his power. The power that spoke the stars into existence is the power that Jesus trusted when he bowed his head and spoke, “It is finished.” Jesus knew that he who frustrates the plans of the peoples will also frustrate the plans of death. The Father’s faithfulness to him, even in the shadow of death, was sovereign faithfulness. And so it must be with us. That’s the only kind there is.

what the bible is about

Tim Keller speaking on what the Bible is basically about ...


(ht)

fewness of believers

John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion:

If God has willed this treasure of understanding to be hidden from his children, it is no wonder or absurdity that the multitude of men are so ignorant and stupid! Among the “multitude” I include even certain distinguished folk, until they become engrafted into the body of the church. Besides, Isaiah, warning that the prophetic teaching would be beyond belief, not only to foreigners but also to the Jews who wanted to be reckoned as members of the Lord’s household, at the same time adds the reason: “The arm of God will not be revealed” to all [Isa. 53:1 p.]. Whenever, then, the fewness of believers disturbs us, let the converse come to mind, that only those to whom it is given can comprehend the mysteries of God [cf. Matt. 13:11].

(via)

blasphemy against the spirit

In light of the errant Strange Fire Gospel, it seemed appropriate to dust off this gem from John Piper on Mk 3.20-35:

The crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself." And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons." And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"—for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

About eight years ago a young woman came into my office at Bethel, extremely distressed over this issue of the unforgivable sin. She told me how one day when she was a young teenager, she got so angry at her mother who was a Christian that she locked herself in her room and used every swear word and oath and all the foul language against the Holy Spirit that she could think of. That day was seared into her conscience and came back to haunt her again and again. She wanted to know if she had committed the unforgivable sin. It is not a merely academic question. What could be more terrifying than to believe you are beyond forgiveness and bound for eternal misery with no escape?

Three Questions

Let's ask three questions to our text:

1. Is there really an unforgivable sin?
2. If so, what is it?
3. How should we live in view of it?

1. Is There Really an Unforgivable Sin?

Is there really an unforgivable sin? Note verse 29, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." Three observations:

God's Forgiveness in View

First, the forgiveness in view is God's forgiveness. The sweetest news for a sinner is that God has forgiven him, that God no longer holds his sins against him. But the worst news in the world is that God will never forgive you. God is the one to reckon with. What men think about our sin is relatively unimportant. What God thinks is infinitely important.

On God's Lips Never Really Means Never

Second, Jesus says that God will never forgive a person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. When a human says, "I'll never forgive you," we may go on with life. There are others we can turn to; and "never" really doesn't mean never. But when God says, "I will never forgive you," then there is nobody to turn to in all the universe and never really means never. If God says to you, "Never will I forgive you," then a million ages from now his verdict will be like granite. His sentences are as unbreakable as his pardons.

Someone may say to you, "Literally Jesus simply said that forgiveness would not be given 'unto the age,' meaning in this age; but in the future age pardon can be found." This is not what Jesus meant. Matthew 12:32 makes his meaning more precise, "Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come." When Mark 3:29 calls blasphemy against the Holy Spirit an "eternal sin," it means a sin that God will not forgive to all eternity. If all the mountains on the earth were wearing down at the rate of one millimeter every thousand years, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would still be unforgiven when the face of the earth is as smooth as a billiard ball. It is an eternally unforgivable sin.

Forever Under God's Wrath

Third, therefore the person who commits this sin is guilty forever before God and under his wrath without end: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness; but is guilty of an eternal sin." If forgiveness is withheld for eternity, guilt is sealed for eternity. God is never neutral to sin. He either forgives it or punishes it. There is no neutral middle ground of indifference. Not to be forgiven by God forever, is to suffer his wrath forever. To reject the doctrine of eternal hell under the wrath of God is to reject the forthright teaching of our Lord Jesus. Mark 3:29 is one of the clearest passages in the Bible to the effect that there will be those shut out of forgiveness, bearing their guilt forever. And it is the teaching of Jesus, who loved us and gave himself for us!

There Is an Unforgivable Sin

So in answer to the first question, yes, there is an unforgivable sin. Jesus calls it an eternal sin, one that never has forgiveness, one that sends a person into eternity to bear his guilt under God's wrath forever.

2. What Is This Unforgivable Sin? 

The second question: What is this sin that is beyond forgiveness? Again verse 29: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness." The unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But what is that?

The Context in Mark

Verse 30 makes clear that Mark wants us to understand blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in relation to the scene in verses 20–27. Verse 30 gives the reason why Jesus brought up the issue of an unforgivable sin: "for they had said [or: were saying], 'He has an unclean spirit.'" That points us back to verse 22: "The scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.'" Note very carefully: Jesus does not say that these scribes have committed the unforgivable sin. He hears them attribute his power over demons to Satan instead of to the Holy Spirit and he says, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness." It is a warning to the scribes. Maybe they have committed the unforgivable sin, maybe they haven't. But when they see the work of the Holy Spirit and call it the work of Satan, they are at least on the brink of never-ending guilt. Perhaps they have even fallen over the edge.

"Whatever Blasphemies They Utter"?

Why do I hesitate to equate what the scribes said with unforgivable blasphemy? I hesitate because Jesus invites me to with verse 28. "Truly I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter." Literally: "All things will be forgiven to the sons of men, the sins and the blasphemies whatever they blaspheme." No exceptions are mentioned. The key to understanding the unforgivable sin is how verse 28 can be stated so absolutely ("all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven") and yet verse 29 can say that there is a blasphemy and a sin beyond forgiveness.

What does verse 28 mean? Mark makes it plain that sins are forgiven only if a person repents. Mark 1:4, "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins." Mark 1:14, 15, "Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel.'" (See also 4:12; 6:12, and Acts 2:38 and 5:31.) In order for anyone to receive forgiveness of sins, they have to repent—that is, to turn from sin to God and trust his grace and follow him. So when Jesus says in Mark 3:28, "All sins will be forgiven the sons of men and whatever blasphemies they utter," he means, all sins and blasphemies from which you genuinely repent.

Beyond Repentance

Why, then, in verse 29 does Jesus seem to exclude one sin and one blasphemy from this promise: the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? I think the reason is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit puts you beyond repentance, and therefore beyond forgiveness. Verse 29 is not an exception to verse 28. Jesus is not saying, All blasphemies that you repent of will be forgiven except blasphemy against the Spirit. He is saying, all blasphemies that you repent of will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven because it puts you beyond repentance—you won't be able to repent of it. If a sin makes it impossible for you to repent, then that is an unforgivable sin, because forgiveness is promised only to those sins from which we genuinely repent (cf. 4:12).

Why This Particular Sin Makes Repentance Impossible

But why does this one particular sin, this one blasphemy, make it impossible to repent and be forgiven? What about blasphemy against the Son of God, or God the Father, or angels, or Scripture, or the church? Why do these not put us beyond repentance and forgiveness? Why only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? I think it's because of the unique and decisive role the Holy Spirit plays in our salvation. If we look to God the Father and then turn from his glory to embrace sin, that is bad. If we look to his Son Jesus Christ whom he sent into the world and then turn away from his glory to embrace sin, that is doubly bad.

But in either case there is hope. The Father has planned redemption, the Son has accomplished redemption. This wonderful redemption is outside ourselves and available to us if we repent of our sin and turn back to Christ in faith. But it is the unique and special role of the Holy Spirit to apply the Father's plan and the Son's accomplishment of it to our hearts. It is the Spirit's work to open our eyes, to grant repentance, and to make us beneficiaries of all that the Father has planned and all that Christ has done for us. If we blaspheme and reject the Father and the Son, there is still hope, for the Spirit may yet work within us to humble us and bring us to repentance. But if behind the Father and the Son we see and taste the power of the Holy Spirit and reject his work as no more precious than the work of Satan, we shut ourselves off from the only one who could ever bring us to repentance. And so we shut ourselves off from forgiveness.

Not Simply a Lifetime of Resistance

Let's take one more step before we define the unforgivable sin. Some people say that the unpardonable sin is continual rejection of the Holy Spirit until death. And thus only death puts a person beyond forgiveness. I think that is wrong for two reasons. One is that in Matthew 12:32 Jesus says, "Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or the age to come." If the possibility of forgiveness were taken away only after death, then Jesus would not have said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable in this age as well as the one to come. Another reason is 1 John 5:16 teaches that there is a sin unto death which is pointless to pray about. It puts a person beyond forgiveness even in this life. Therefore the unforgivable blasphemy against the Spirit is not simply a lifetime of resistance against the Holy Spirit.

The Unforgivable Sin Defined

What then is it? The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws for ever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven.

3. How Shall We Live in Light of This Possibility?

Our final question is: How should we live in view of this possibility?

Run from Sin with Fear and Trembling

The fact that there is an unforgivable sin—that there comes a point in a life of sin after which the Holy Spirit will no longer grant repentance—that fact should drive us from sin with fear and trembling. None of us knows when our toying with sin will pass over into irrevocable hardness of heart. Very few people feel how serious sin is. Very few people are on the same wavelength with Jesus when he said in Mark 9:43, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire." Instead, many professing Christians today have such a sentimental view of God's justice that they never feel terror and horror at the thought of being utterly forsaken by God because of their persistence in sin. They have the naïve notion that God's patience has no end and that they can always return from any length and depth of sin, forgetting that there is a point of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power, leaving them never able to repent and be forgiven.

They are like the buzzard who spots a carcass on a piece of ice floating in the river. He lands and begins to eat. He knows it is dangerous because the falls are just ahead. But he looks at his wings and says to himself, "I can fly to safety in an instant." And he goes on eating. Just before the ice goes over the falls he spreads his wings to fly but his claws are frozen in the ice and there is no escape—neither in this age nor the age to come. The Spirit of holiness has forsaken the arrogant sinner forever.

The Offer of Grace: Repent and Be Forgiven

You have heard the warning. Now hear the offer of grace. "All sins will be forgiven the sons of men and whatever blasphemies they utter." I urge you in the name of Christ: if by God's grace you can repent today of your sin, do it now, because you may not be able to tomorrow.