The Holy Spirit
I saw a comment the other day where a Charismatic said to a cessationist:
I haven’t met any serious cessationists who were under the age of 60 in a REALLY long time.
Despite my disagreement with his non-cessationist views, this statement has some truth to it. The younger crowd of Christians, this same crowd that is for the most part starting to embrace the doctrines of Calvinism as biblical truth, tend to be more ‘open’ to the possibility of spiritual gifts than the older crowd. There are a number of reasons for this, the main one being (in my opinion) a bad taste left over from the rigid, overly-dogmatic, legalistic, harsh ‘rules’ that the fundamentalist movement forced upon us while we were growing up. This is, in a way, a very good thing! We have a generation that wants to get back to what the Bible says! Praise God! But taking this 'back to the book' approach, to the untrained reader, it is easy to be seduced by the notion that the book of Acts or 1 Corinthians describes the normal way of life in the NT church.
But the issue of the gifts is not the topic of this post. Instead, I make the above statements to emphasize how sad our (when I say ‘our’, I mean the majority of modern-day Christianity, including myself) doctrine of the Holy Spirit is. There are just way too many people running around saying all of this stuff about the Spirit who haven’t a clue what the scriptures say about this Divine Person.
For example, can you defend the deity of the Holy Spirit? Ask yourself if you can show from scripture how the Spirit is a separate person from God the Father and God the Son, and how He is still God in Himself. Or, to give another example, why did Jesus say that He must depart to the Father before the Spirit could be sent? Doesn’t this make it seem like the Spirit and the Son are in fact the same Person? TD Jakes and other Oneness Pentecostals sure think so. But sadly, many Christians now days just take the orthodox Trinitarian truths at face value without ever looking into them close enough to defend these doctrine in the face of detractors.
So, from the looks of things, we have a whole ‘younger’ generation who loves to debate whether the sign gifts have ended or not, but who in reality can’t really defend the basic truths about the Spirit in general. This should not be so! It is my firm conviction that if people would just get their doctrine of the Spirit right, ie, from scripture, then these debates over the continuation of gifts would decrease significantly.
Thus, today I would like to pose you a question on the Spirit:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. - John 14:25-27
Notice a few things about this passage: First, Jesus speaks in the future tense in that he will ask His Father and He will give the Spirit. Secondly, however, notice that Jesus sums the discussion up by saying that He dwells with you, present tense.
So, which is it? Did the disciples have the Spirit? Or were they to receive the Spirit at a future time?
Well, it is my position that they most certainly had the Spirit before Pentecost (though He came and went). In fact, every believer before Pentecost (all OT believers) had the exact same Spirit as is present after Pentecost. Pentecost wasn't some special annointing that would have ramifications throughout the entire church age. No, it was simply a special working of the same Spirit (as was in the OT) to build and establish the gentile church. But regeneration (the new birth) is certainly not possible outside of the work of the Spirit, so if anyone prior to Pentecost is in heaven, in must be because of the work of the Spirit.
To back up my point, consider that Jesus in John 3 emphatically tells Nicodemus that one must be born of the Spirit to see the kingdom of heaven. In 3:8 Jesus specifically ties salvation to the Work of the Spirit. But was Jesus prophesying about Pentecost? Was He simply teaching what would be true after His death? Definitely not. The next verse down in 3:9-10 it says,
“Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"
Jesus expected Nicodemus to have a correct doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament alone. Would Jesus rebuke you just the same?
SDG
17 Exhortations:
Good post! I did have one question though.
You said;
Pentecost wasn't some special annointing that would have ramifications throughout the entire church age.
Could you clarify?
Ah Jeremy, I figured that comment might stir up some controversy!
What I meant was that Pentecost was a Divine outpouring of the Spirit for the specific building of the NT church. That is, the tongues, healings, signs and wonders were an aberration, so to speak, or an ‘outpouring’ of the Spirit for a specific purpose. I do not see these things as meant to be interpreted as ‘this is the new covenant now, and the Spirit, similar to this, is going to characterize the entire era in this way until Christ returns.’
Instead, I read in the Old Testament where God poured out His Spirit as well. I read of prophecy, miraculous signs and wonders in the OT as well. Simply put, this was a special outpouring for revival, not unlike how the Spirit was used at certain times in the OT, and that we cannot look at this period as a time when the Spirit is still being given in like manner.
I simply see that the Holy Spirit is not some new thing for the NT age and foreign to the OT. He was active in the OT as well! So naturally, if we see 400+ years of complete silence in the OT, we can expect such periods in the New as well.
Nathan,
Between you and Kim Riddlebarger, it'll take me weeks to flush out (maybe I should say flesh out) some preconceptions I've had concerning some of the things you and he have said lately. That good though isn't it?
Rick
O. K. I somewhat disagree but not enough to make anything of it.
BTW, Thanks for the link.
Nathan,
Good post and I totally agree with you. As you and I have discussed it a little before, don't you think the one major difference between the OT & NT is the concept of a permanent indwelling Spirit in contrast to a sporadic indwelling, or do you think this is an oversimplification of the matter?
why don't you cats do a little more research on the subject so you can see the big picture?
check out this article:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/mystery.htm
john
Jeremy,
Thanks for stopping by. I definitely enjoy your blog. I hope others will go to it from my homepage. Even though you are a Non-cessationist :), I value your imput.
Rick, I love Riddlbarger! He's got two great books, Amillinnialism and The Man of Sin. I read them both not too long ago and greatly enjoyed them. Yes, it's great to get the old mind fleshed out, that's why I enjoy feedback on the (sometimes) crazy things I write.
SDG
Davide said: don't you think the one major difference between the OT & NT is the concept of a permanent indwelling Spirit in contrast to a sporadic indwelling
I agree completely. I've been studying this issue lately, and hope to post on it at least once more, but from what I see, the permanent indwelling is the only difference I see between the Old and New. There just isn't a lot of talk about the Spirit in the old, but like I showed from John 3 and John 14, the Spirit obviously had a role before the New Covenant.
I posted this mainly becauase I'm studying a little New Covenant theology and Dispensationalism (which, by all accounts, are similiar to each other on a bunch of points). Both of those methods of interpretation see a radical change in how God deals with people at the beginning of the new covenant. They both say that the 'church' was born at Pentecost, the law changed at Pentecost (but not before), and that the Spirit wasn't really working before that time. I obviously disagree with all three of these points, and think that the argument contrary to these views is a little overwhelming. Thus, I am now looking into how the Spirit worked in the OT, and I am seeing that the Spirit is by no means a new and improved concept in the NC.
SDG
Oh yeah...I probably lean more towards a New Covenant view as well.
I can't speak for other New Covenanter's, but I personally do believe that the Church was born at Pentecost.
However, the Law of Christ was instituted before Pentecost (and if you pressed me real hard I would say that it can be seen in the Mosaic Code, but cannot be equated with that Code), and of course the Holy Spirit was active before Pentecost! The whole of Christianity rests on the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the Old Testament!
I'm glad our paths crossed. I think we can have a lot of fun discussing this stuff.
Are you really NCT, Jeremy? I wouldn't have guessed that at all.
So the church was born at Pentecost, and yet Jesus mentions the church in Matthew 16 and 18, and there was a process for gentiles to be a part of the Old Covenant? (Those are questions we might just have to flesh out in a post. )
Also, when you say 'the law of Christ', are you saying that this is a different law than was given in the OT, or that our relation to the law and our perspective thereof has changed in Christ?
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just real interested in discussing some of these things as of late. After recently coming out of Dispensationalism, I'm interested in distinguishing between NCT and CT. I think I might just post my thoughts on the church/law and see how my brothers respond.
Write your post...we'll compare notes.
Like yourself, I also came out Dispensationalism(about five years ago)...but almost became Presbyterian. I emphasized the unity of the Covenant to a point of legalism. Then I taught through Galatians last year and I was changed by that experience.
I'm not a hard-core NCTer, I even disagree with a lot of the NCT, but I do think it fair to let you know I lean that way.
Here's how I view each system in relation to the two covenants:
1. Traditional Dispensationalism-
extreme disconinuity between OT & NT in all aspects.
2. Progressive Dispensationalism--extreme discontinuity, but less in relation to God's overall plan.
3. New Covenant Theology--
Discontinuity bewteen OT & NT, except in relation to the people of God.
4. Baptistic Covenant Theology--Discontinuity in Mosaic law (ceremonial, civil), but continuity in everything else.
5. Pedeobaptist Covenant Theology--Continuity between the OT & NT, with almost no discontinuity.
Yeah Davide, good summary. For clarification, and I plan to post on this stuff soon:
Regarding #3 below: NCT agrees with Dispensationalism on just about all fronts except for the distinction between Israel and the church. However, there are so many flavors of positions within those who call themselves 'NCT' it's hard to nail it down precisely. Also, there are some dispensationals (for example, John MacArthur), who for the most part, have a reformed view of the law and simply a dispensational view of the people of God.
Regarding #4 and #5: I would say that many Pedos do see a discontinuity in the ceremonial and civil portion of the law. There are those however that see 'principles' within the civil portion of the law, and that is usually refered to as 'theonomy' or as a movement of 'reconstructionists'. These make up a much smaller portion of Covenant Theology, and are usually post-millennial (the most consistent with their view of the law). Thus, regarding the use of the law, most 'baptists' and pedeos' agree on this issue.
Good summation. I hope to bring this subject up again soon.
SDG
That's true, especially about pedobaptists. I think its interesting that ALL systems acknowledge the discontinuity of the ceremonial law because of its fulfillment in Christ, yet many dispensationalists believe in a future reinstatement of it in the millenium. Weird.
Anyway, does MacArthur believe in the active viability of the law in the life of a believer?
Yeah, MacArthur is a strange one. He does believe in the reinstatement of the ceremonial aspects of the law as a 'memorial' in the Millennium.
Yes, MacArthur does believe in the active viability of the law in the life of the believer, as does Piper. However, I don't think either one of them hold to the sabbath. They both kind of have their own view, though it is decidely slanted more towards CT than NCT. Neither one of them believe in this 'new law' of Jesus, and neither one of them deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, as other NCTers do.
MacArthur is dispy in his view of the church, CT in his view of the purpose/nature/function of the law in the life of the NC believer, and NCT in his view of the Decalogue.
Piper is CT in his view of the church, CT in his view of the purpose/nature/function of the law in the life of the NC believer, and probably NCT in his view of the Decalogue and other OT passages.
You know, I came out of the local mega church in this area. And when I first got saved, it was their shallow view of the law/scriptures that made me so sick. The reformed use of the law, as seen in agreement on almost every point among the likes of Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, etc., is what really drew me out of that mega church, SBC movement. It was Lordship salvation, deny yourself type of langage (obviously, this comes from a CT view), that really convicted my heart.
BTW Davide,
After doing a little research, I found that Piper believes that the Holy Spirit in the OT was just the same as in the New, even to the point that it was with them constantly, only that the 'wattage' or 'intensity' was turned up at Pentecost.
And MacArthur believes the difference was that the Spirit came and went in the OT, but that it is here to stay in the NT.
They pretty much agree, with Piper saying that only the intensity changed at Pentecost, and MacArthur saying consistency changed instead.
I don't think there was ANY substantive difference in the way the Holy Spirit moved in/through the life of the Old Covenant believer vs. the New Covenant believer.
What is different now centers on the fact that it used to be possible to be fully involved in the covenant, and yet be unregenerate. That is the reason why we see covenant members walking around without the Spirit (like Saul, for instance)in the Old Covenant economy.
There is no place in the OT where the Spirit departed from someone who is definately regenerate.
The difference now re:Pentecost is the "democratization" of the Spirit among all Covenant members. All are indwelt, from smallest to greatest. I think this is the best solution to the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 regarding the New Covenant, and the fulfillment of Acts 2.
Post a Comment