Sacramental issues

After two weeks slogging through one of the toughest subjects in all of Christendom (Baptism), I thought I might try a written response to clear up some of the ambiguity remaining. Let me start by saying that I knew that this was going to be difficult, but my policy is to deal with the subjects that arise in scripture when we come to them rather than find easy topics and find the scripture to go with them. That policy is one I believe strongly in maintaining. We need to think about, pray about, and discuss tough topics.

One general note before I proceed. We are having a Bible Study, not an Anglican Study. Our source material is scripture, not the Book of Common Prayer (origins of this fine prayer book notwithstanding). While there will be Anglican particulars mentioned, the point of this exercise is to explore and learn about the Bible. If you feel that we are losing track of that point, please interject and we will adjust our trajectory.

There are two sacraments instituted by Jesus during his earthly ministry: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In this we are in agreement. We are also in agreement that the Holy Spirit is the active agent in both sacraments. What follows then is my description of these two sacraments and answers to all of the questions that arose over these two meetings.

A sacrament, according to the Anglican lexicon, is an outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible truth. Some of you may not have heard this definition before, but those of you who have an Anglican background certainly have, and probably also those of you who have a Methodist background. This means that we are doing a ritual, but that there is something unseen going on there as well. As we stated before, the Holy Spirit is the active agent. Therefore, what we need to discover is what the Holy Spirit is doing in both of these instances.

Baptism is instituted as a necessary initiation into the covenant community by Jesus in Matthew 3. We know that this is a necessary part of the salvation equation because in the Great Commission [Matthew 28:19], Jesus specifically states that we should go forth baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We know that washing with water is necessary from John 13, the baptism of the apostles. We have discussed that the Holy Spirit is present, but the implications of that presence need to be emphasized.

The notion of covenant inclusion is ground that we have covered in our meetings. In the Old Testament (OT), covenant inclusion was set out in the Abrahamic Covenant [Genesis 15-18] with a sacrament of circumcision [Genesis 17]. Circumcision was the outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible truth: inclusion in the covenant family of Abraham. Baptism is instituted as a new sacrament of repentance that is the outward, visible sign of the inward, invisible truth of inclusion in the New Covenant family of Jesus. Following the Jewish precedent, circumcision was not done until at least the eighth day of life [Genesis 17:12], but it was not exclusively an infant event. Many people were brought into the Jewish covenant family by adult circumcision [Genesis 17:12-13]. The difference between circumcision and baptism, then, is a matter of into which covenant are we inviting the new member. The New Covenant in Christ Jesus is the Better Covenant because He fulfilled all the prior OT covenants and established His New Covenant through His blood.

So, while the outward visible sign is clear, water baptism, let us explore the nature of the inward, invisible truth. While only men were circumcised, we baptize all people including women. It is important to understand that the English word “man” comes from German and it means people in a general sense without respect to gender. Likewise, the Greek words used in the institution of this sacrament are not gender specific. Therefore, we can in good conscious baptize women as well as men. This is an important step. Nowhere does Jesus specifically baptize a woman. Importantly, neither is this specified concerning John the Baptist. We can, therefore, surmise that Jesus is MORE inclusive than the OT model.

We can also say that the Holy Spirit was clearly present when John baptized Jesus. In fact, as one of us so adroitly pointed out, this was the first public expression of the Trinity [Matthew 3:16-17]. This presence of the Holy Spirit is a key point that cannot be overstated. The Holy Spirit is present in the sacraments. This is what makes them sacraments.

Digression for a moment is necessary at this point to discuss the condition of sin. We all agree that sin entered into the world through one man, Adam, and his sin is imputed on all of his offspring forever. The wage of sin is death and all men inherit this wage from Adam: we all die. Just as clearly, we are all born into sin. This means that no man is capable of doing good on his own. Indeed, given the choice, no man can or would choose God on his own [Romans 3:1-12]. This means very specifically that every man born is sinful by nature from the moment of conception. It requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit to change this truth. This is an important point and one of which we must not lose sight: we cannot and would not choose Christ on our own. An adult is baptized after an encounter with the Holy Spirit. But who is to say that an adult is not coerced into being baptized or is lying about his faith, and has his first encounter with the Holy Spirit in Baptism. That encounter is genuine nonetheless.

God is faithful all the time; and all the time, God is faithful. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; and all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful. If you are predestined before time to be a vessel that the potter has made for salvation [Ephesians 1:3-14], then the efficacy of baptism is 100%. If not, then efficacy of baptism is nil, because the Holy Spirit knows true faith and knows which vessel is to be good. This is a key point between some Protestants, particularly Lutherans, who believe that baptism delivers what it promises: redemption and transformation. Others believe in regard to apparent failure of regeneration in a person one of two possibilities, either that a person may “fall away” from Christ, or that the baptism was not authentic in some way, meaning that the Holy Spirit did not enter into the person being baptized at that moment. Both of these possibilities are troubling. If the Holy Spirit is always present and enters into the recipient of the sacrament, then if a person appears to fall away from Christ, then the Holy Spirit is not always faithful. I cannot, of course, accept that as a possibility. This leaves me with the other possibility: some vessels are meant for salvation and others are not. The Holy Spirit knows the difference. But let us never forget the example of Luke 23:39-43, the second prisoner on the cross next to Jesus. Even in the last moments of life, the Holy Spirit is faithful. We as mere human witnesses are not able ultimately to discern the difference. While true faith and salvation demonstrates good fruit, it is important to bear in mind that we are not God. We do not ultimately decide which vessel is meant for salvation and which is not.

We do as a covenant people hold the keys to the covenant community. In as much as that is true, we hold the keys to the sacrament of Baptism (there is an obvious quandary and corollary concerning the thief on the cross and his baptism). As those who hold the keys to the sacrament of baptism, how do we best control entry into the covenant community?

There are obviously two models: paedobaptism and credobaptism. Paedo is a Greek root meaning child. So, paedobaptism is the baptism of children. Credo is a Latin root that means belief. So credobaptism is the baptism of believers. It is interesting that the root words are from Greek (paedo & baptism) and Latin (credo). Greek is the language of the New Testament (NT), while Latin is the language of Rome. Do with that what you will! I only point it out for academic interest, not a proof point.

When engaging the issue of paedobaptism, I think it is important to go back to scripture. The most obvious point is neither side is given definitive inclusion or exclusion by scripture. Read John 13, particularly verse 7 along with verses 12-20. The apostles did not understand what was happening to them even as Jesus Himself was instituting the sacrament of baptism. The argument can go either way from here. Either, as Jesus states, they will come to understand soon, or the Holy Spirit does the action on them that day, only to bring full understanding to them later.

This leads us down the two roads we discussed above. If we argue that Pentecost completes the baptism of the apostles, but could not occur prior to Easter and is therefore a separate event for them only, then we can say that there is one baptism as in the Nicene Creed and that believers baptism was present for the apostles as well. This is sort of the same way that Abraham’s covenant spills out over 4 chapters rather than being in one neat, concise package. If we argue that Pentecost is either a second baptism or, better, a second encounter with the Holy Spirit that brings understanding, then we have baptism of the apostles without true belief at that point, but with the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit as the agent of regeneration. Still, this is troubling as it leads us to dangerous ground of a second baptism if that language is taken into Acts 2.

For the record, the word ‘baptism’ does not appear in Acts 2. It just doesn’t. What it says there instead is that the Holy Spirit comes and enters them. It does not even say that it is their first encounter with the Holy Spirit, although some may argue that it is implied by Jesus when he says that the Paraclete cannot come until he is gone. So, does this mean that the Holy Spirit was not present at the baptism of the apostles? Remember Matthew 3. The Holy Spirit was already present with Jesus. The difference in Acts 2 is that now the Holy Spirit has come to take residence in all of us. This is a change in locus not a change in function. This is an Easter generated event, a one-time shift from external to internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we can argue that the apostles’ baptism is unique. While the Holy Spirit was present at their baptism due to the presence and participation of Jesus, the consummation of the new residence of the Holy Spirit in the covenant people is instituted at Pentecost. This is not a second baptism. Subsequent to Pentecost, the Holy Spirit immediately assumes His dwelling inwardly in the recipient of the sacrament of baptism. Therefore, regeneration occurs simultaneously with covenant community entry in those who are known by the Holy Spirit from before time.

This discussion is not meant to say that adults are not or should not be baptized. That is a ridiculous notion. All the apostles were adults. Even in the Anglican Communion today, far more adults are baptized than infants. What is meant here is not either-or, but both-and. Remember what we said much earlier: Jesus is MORE inclusive than Abraham, not less.

Still, we hold the keys as covenant leaders to the sacrament of baptism. Who shall we baptize? Here, we must look again at biblical precedent. If baptism is to circumcision as Jesus is to Abraham, then the eighth day seems to be appropriate if the new infant is born into a covenant family. This is a key point. The family must be a covenant family. If a communicant elder knows the family, then this part is easy. He may baptize the infant. If the elder does not know the family, or only knows one parent, this becomes more difficult. The responsibility of raising the child in covenant community lies not only with the parents, but with the whole covenant community. Let us suppose that a parent desires the an elder who baptized them to also baptize their child, but that parent no longer attends the congregation of that elder. Instead, they attend a congregation in another town. It would not be appropriate for that elder who does not know both parents to do the baptism. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for that elder’s congregation to take on the responsibility for raising that child in covenant community when the parents are a part of another covenant community. I hope that this clears up one of the statements that I made concerning whether I would or would not baptize a particular child. The responsibility is not just on the elder, but on his congregation, in addition to the parents.

Concerning adults, who shall we baptize? Is the Holy Spirit just as faithful for adults as He is for infants and children? Of course. Nonetheless, we have the opportunity with adults to lead them to greater understanding prior to the institution of the sacrament of Baptism. The notion of a believer’s baptism makes greater sense in the context of an adult. But Baptism is not just about belief, it is about repentance. An adult is able to understand that they are sons of Adam and therefore born into sin needing salvation from an external source. An adult can be taught the full equation of salvation: why it was necessary for Jesus to enter the world, why Easter was necessary, why faith is sufficient. An adult is already the head of his own nuclear family, be it only a family of one. His responsibility is greater in that regard. He must repent and accept the futility of his own works. This implies that the adult has already encountered the Holy Spirit prior to baptism (unless there is coercion or falsehood involved). Why would we be surprised about that, that the Holy Spirit has already been at work? What are the means of grace? The means of grace are the preaching of the Word and the sacraments. The Holy Spirit encounters man when we preach the Word (correctly). Again, adult baptism is not the exception, it is the majority.

Finally, concerning baptism, there is the problem of multiple baptisms. Some people feel that when they have fallen away from God for a while or that their relationship with God has gotten stale, that they need to do something to renew their zeal. They will seek a second (or third) baptism. This is not the same as someone who either does not know if they were baptized or whether their baptism was valid due to the apostasy of the celebrant. For those people, reassurance is necessary that the first baptism is valid. The power lies in the Holy Spirit, not in either the elder or the new covenant member. If a second baptism occurs, it is OK. It is not necessary, but it is OK.

Returning to the issue of the person who has "fallen away" and seeks re-baptism for this reason, there is a major flaw with this thinking. There is the assumption that how a person feels about God matters to how God feels towards His people. This very assumption flies in the face of the sovereignty of God. God is faithful all the time; all the time, God is faithful. God does not need us to do anything. It is already done. It is finished. Baptism was designed as a onetime event to bring us into the covenant community, to bring about our regeneration, and to begin the process of sanctification. There was another sacrament designed by Christ and instituted by Christ that is designed for repeat usage, in fact, it is designed for whenever we are gathered together. This is the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion.

The institution of the Lord’s Supper [Matthew 26:26-29] begins a sacrament of memorial for events yet to come at that point in history (prior to Easter). And yet, we can say truly that the Holy Spirit is present, because the Holy Spirit was present with Jesus at that moment. When Paul is chastising the church in Corinth [1 Corinthians 11], he frames the scene as this: “When you come together as a church….” He proceeds to discuss the Lord’s Supper. The implication here is that when we come together as a church, we share the Lord’s Supper. While many churches do not do communion regularly, some do. My intent here is not to argue an issue of frequency (you already know my views of this point); my intent instead is to argue the issue of the presence of the Holy Spirit in this sacrament.

If we need renewal, and all of us do need renewal from time to time, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is there for us. If as Paul says that this sacrament is available whenever we gather as a church, then surely we should take him at his word. Some saints may argue that repeating this sacrament regularly takes away from the specialness of the sacrament. They might say that they do not feel particularly in tune with that sacrament on a particular day. This is the same error that those same saints make concerning baptism. The power is not in the person administering the sacrament or in the person receiving the sacrament. The power is in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God; the Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful.

We are so wound up in what we do, that we can lose sight of who is actually doing anything that matters. It isn’t us. Jesus spoke that it was done. The Holy Spirit is sanctifying us as we live and breathe, even when we do not recognize his hand. The means of grace are God’s Word and the sacraments that Jesus has given us. Through those means of grace, the Holy Spirit is working on us despite ourselves. Our reverent mood or zeal is not required. The Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful. What can we possibly offer that God doesn’t already have? What can we do that hasn’t already been done? I don’t really like the slogan “Let go and let God,” but there is certain applicability to this discussion. We must let go of our desire to control God. We must let go of our desire to believe that we bring anything of value to the table. Salvation is not about us and what we do. Salvation is about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It is for us, for all of us whom He has chosen. We have an advocate with the Father; He always wins His cases. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who never loses one of His own.

Let us continue to use all of these tools that we have been given, to the glory of God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Lord's Prayer: Luke 11

The law-gospel distinction is the most important aspect of understanding Scripture, according to Martin Luther. If we fail to get this part correct, it is likely that we will do great damage to our understanding of Scripture. Akin to this law-gospel distinction is the distinction between imperative and indicative. This reformed notion of identification based upon the grammar of the text dovetails nicely with the law-gospel distinction of Martin Luther. Without burying my dear reader in intellectualizations on this topic, let us look at some practical examples.

In the past, we have examined Matthew 5 in some detail. We have discussed the issue of the several subplots of metanarrative occurring in that text, the difference between indicative and imperative, and the law-gospel distinction.  In particular, once again, let us draw attention to the conclusion of Jesus in this passage: You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48 ESV) That is our starting point for looking at today’s passage from Luke 11.

The first half of Luke 11 concerns prayer, and it is the place where Luke includes the Lord’s Prayer.  This is followed by a parable and then three imperatives followed by encouragement.  Let us begin this section by first connecting the framework of this passage with the rest of redemptive history.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)

And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.” (Genesis 8:21)

You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Matthew 12:34)

If you then, who are evil…. (Luke 11:13 ESV)

You know that we can keep going and going with this theme, but this is enough for our purposes today.  If we examine the three imperatives of verse 9, ask, seek and knock, the question that strikes us most immediately is what are the indicatives?  It does not seem likely that the evil nature of man is the proper indicative for these imperatives.  Therefore, where do we find the indicatives?

Chapter 10, while containing several rather famous tidbits and stories, also contains the context and the indicative of Chapter 11.  Let’s examine the parameters.  Luke talks about the 72, who he sends out in pairs to do great wonders, leaving and then returning.       

“Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:20 ESV)

The power over demons is not the amazing thing in the mind of Jesus.  The amazing thing is that some lot of this evil brood known as mankind might be heirs of heaven, and for that amazing event, this group should rejoice.  The ultimate power is in Salvation, not in power on earth, even over demons and spirits.

Finally, in Luke 11:1 we find:

Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” (Luke 11:1 ESV)

Jesus is with his disciples, of whom there are at least 72, and they are all (with one notable exception) men and women who will receive Salvation.  And yet the exception proves the rule.  The indicative of the imperatives of 11:9 are those who have been chosen for Salvation.  Who will pray earnestly to God in the name of Jesus?  Only those for whom Salvation is sure will pray in this way.  Ask, seek, knock.  Will we receive the answers that we seek?  Will we be given the path to the place we desire to go?  Judas was not of the elect, and the doors did not open for him.  Judas asked questions, and even when he was given answers, he did not understand them.  Judas was seeking something, and yet what was most to be desired was sitting right next to him, and he could not see it.  These imperatives are for the elect.

But the issue runs deeper than just for whom are these imperatives meant.  The issue is also for what do we seek and where do we wish to go.  The answer for this question has also been given by Jesus just above.  Our target is Salvation, not power over the things of this world.  Do not be blinded by the power and miss the source.  These signs and wonders were given so that we might know that Jesus is exactly who He said that He is.  Ultimately, the gift is Salvation.

Look at the Lord’s Prayer, again.  Hallowed be your name.  The irony of this line should not be lost.  Jesus is teaching his disciples how to pray to Him.  Notice that the familiar phrase “who art in heaven” is missing in the Luke text.  Who is speak to them and standing right before them?  He was not, at that moment, actually in heaven!  He was standing right before them.  There are buckets full of references to the name of God in the Old Testament.  But now, we know that there is no name above Jesus in heaven and on earth.  How can that be?  Only because He who IS, has condescended to be among us, one of us, fully God and fully human.  Hallowed be His name. 

Your kingdom come.  How many people say these words with no thought to their meaning.  This is eschatology 101, and we are taught to proclaim it in prayer.  Your kingdom come.  The Age to Come is that time when Jesus Christ will return (the Advent) and all will be bodily raised.  What is also inextricable from this time is Judgment.  Salvation is revealed not by what occurs in this world, but what befalls at Judgment.  Your kingdom come is a phrase thick with promise for the elect for whom this prayer is intended, and equally thick with foreboding for those who do not believe in the promise.  This phrase, uniquely Christian, professes a belief that Christ will come again and usher in the Age to Come.

Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins….  Jesus actually tells us for what we should pray!  Pay attention to His words.  Jesus is quoting scripture.

Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, (Proverbs 30:8 ESV)

I have not departed from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my portion of food. (Job 23:12 ESV)    

How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! (Psalm 119:103 ESV)

But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.” (John 4:32, 34 ESV)

So often, I have heard this passage likened to manna in Exodus 16, the bread from heaven.  Types and shadows, once again, these words reveal to us.  In that day, during the Exodus, Israel needed real food.  But Jesus likens our needs not only to worldly food, but also to the Word of God.  As John 1 says, Jesus is the Word.  So, when in communion, we hear the words “the Body of Christ, the bread of heaven,” the analogy has come full circle.  We feast on the body of Christ that is the bread of heaven that is the Word of God.  So, this bread we crave is the Gospel.

But the passage means more than this still.  The whole Exodus story is teaching us to understand that each day is a gift, and that the end of the Age could come at any moment.  This is an idea that, when paired with Your Kingdom Come, reinforces the eschatological aspect of the prayer.  We are praying for Salvation, for the Gospel, for the Age to Come.  These are not the everyday sort of mundane desires of the flesh that we frequently associate with supplication.

Moving on to the next portion, the forgiveness of sins is asked of God.  This is an interesting grammatical nuance at this point.  Notice that Jesus does not ask for the forgiveness of sin.  This is not a prayer for initial Salvation, because the persons who say this prayer are the elect, already declared righteous on Judgment day by virtue of the gift of faith in the promise.  This is asking forgiveness for the sins that we commit because we are still in this present evil age, under the curse of Adam, and fail through our inherent wickedness to fulfill the Law.  The difference is that we now can recognize this fault and ask for forgiveness and receive absolution.  Finally, it is during this period that Jesus forgives sins Himself, thereby claiming the authority of God.  Check out Luke 5:17- 26.   This is the real issue that got Him in hot water with the Pharisees.  Jesus claims very publicly to be God.

…for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.  Really?  Do we, now?  Look at the story in Luke 7:41-50.  The question asked is in response to a question by a Pharisee, who had invited Jesus over to his house for a meal.  He chastises Jesus for allowing a sinner to touch him.  Jesus turns the question on an issue of debt and debtors.  He who is forgiven little, loves little. Therefore, we who have been forgiven eternally and immeasurably, how much shall we forgive?  How much shall we love our neighbor?

And lead us not into temptation.  Clearly, God does not truly lead us into temptation.  But we might find ourselves in situations that will test us.  We are instructed to count it as joy when these situations arise, for we are strengthened by them.  But that is a far cry from seeking out these situations and asking to be lead to them.  We are in essence beseeching God to spare us from these trials.  And yet, we will be joyful in our hardships and be strengthened by them.

Now, look at Matthew 6 and see the same prayer.  Notice the differences between this Luke version and the fuller version in Matthew.  This fuller version in Matthew brings more of the context of our present evil age and our lives and responsibilities while we are still on this earth.  In each step of the prayer, there is a slightly wider context.  But we are in Luke, currently.  And we have come to the imperatives.

The parable offered is interesting and may just turn on one word: impudence.  This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament.  The Greek is anaideia, and it is possibly translated as persistence as well.  But let’s run through both meanings.  His friend rises and gives him what he asks because of his impudence and/or his persistence.  The lesson is that we must be bold, fearless, immodest, persistent.  But there is the other connotation of the word impudent: disrespectful, improper, impertinent.  Are we being disrespectful, improper and impertinent with our supplications?  Let us continue.

Does this passage say or imply that we who pray earnestly, who ask, seek and knock, will actually receive exactly that for which we pray?  We have an interesting comparison here.  God would not give us a serpent or a scorpion in lieu of a fish or an egg.  But here we have very specifically the gift we receive from prayer: the Holy Spirit.  This is interesting on so many levels.  First, Jesus is implying rather directly that the object of our supplication should be related to the works of the Holy Spirit.  We have seen in the Matthew version a more worldly presentation of this prayer.  Yet, here in Luke, the theme has been a more eschatological one, and this response from Jesus is in line with that theme.  Once again, we should be praying for knowledge and wisdom concerning the Gospel.  Second, concerning this line of questioning, we should be bold with our prayer.  Fearlessly and with impudence, we pray for understanding of the Gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit.  This is completely consistent with the John 14 and 16 passages concerning the work of the Holy Spirit.  Third, and most importantly, there is no direct connection between our supplication and the gift.  In other words, we may not receive that for which we ask, for which we seek.  But how much more than that is our gift?  How much more than the mundane and worldly things of our prayer is our actual gift?

But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—(1 Corinthians 2:9 ESV)

Paul is quoting Isaiah 64, an intense passage for bedtime reading, and links the idea that we cannot see the mind of God with the revelation of what God has prepared.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 25:34 ESV)

Once again, the gift is eschatological in nature.  We are talking about the Kingdom, the Age to Come.  This is not a worldly kingdom in this present evil age, this is the Kingdom of God in the Age to Come.

The richness of the context of the passage is once again vastly more impressive than the mundane desires of our evil hearts.  The context of this Luke passage is slightly different than the same story in Matthew.  Luke focuses on a wider view by paring down the verbiage.  In Luke, we hear Jesus discuss prayer and supplication in a grander context than mere earthly needs.  We learn that the gift of prayer is not always that which we seek, but much more than what we think we need, and much more wonderful and amazing.

What the true proverb (26:11) says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:22 ESV)

We have heard the Gospel, and because our hearts are evil, the temptation is to run back to the Law.  The Law can only demonstrate our sin.  The Law has no power to save.  Salvation is in the Gospel.  The Gospel is the true gift, and a much better object for prayer.

--Ogre--

To my Pentecostal Brothers and Sisters, part 2

Before we push on into more of the scripture, I left a lot of dangling questions in the last post.  Let’s clean up a couple of those first.  I made an assertion that our health, wealth and happiness was not, and should not be, our greatest concern.  In point of fact, we hear constantly in our churches today that God wants us to be healthy, wealthy and happy, in a word, prosperous.  I know where these ideas originate.  They come from the Old Covenant discussion of blessings and curses.  They start with the idea that we can uphold the Law and obtain the blessings of those covenants.  I want to begin this post by imploding that argument.

First of all, are you ethnically Jewish?  If you answered yes, then I have some bad news for you. You have already broken the covenants.  Only two covenants were made unilaterally (arguably the Noahide as well, but that is another conversation,) and those are the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.  The creation covenant and the Mosaic covenants were broken by the Jews.  They were conditional covenants.  If you put your faith in the Law, how are you going to claim the rewards when you have already broken the deal?  You didn’t break the deal?  Show me the Temple.  Yes, right now.  Show me the Temple.  You broke the deal.  Do you expect that you will not die?  You broke the deal.

Now, the rest of you who answered no, I’ve got some bad news for you.  The Mosaic covenant was not for you.  You were not given any of the promises made to Moses.  Even if you think you have kept Mosaic Law (Messianic Jews, who are not really Jews at all,) you haven’t really kept the Law, and it’s not your deal anyway, so let it go.  I find it absolutely astounding that preachers can tell people that they can have this and that based upon Old Covenant promises that had nothing to do with us Gentiles.  Those promises were not about us.

The arguments of Paul, in Romans 4 in particular, explain to us how the Abrahamic Covenant and then the Davidic Covenant are about us gentiles.  The fact that God made His promise to Abraham before he was circumcised allowed all of humanity access to this covenant.  Faith in the promise is the key.  That is how gentiles have access to Salvation.  Read all of Romans again.  You can do just chapters 3 and 4 for now, for time concerns, but read the whole letter.  Read it straight through, or use my link so that you can listen to it being read to you.  Each argument builds logically on the one before.  Paul anticipates your objections and deals with them as they arise.  It is amazing stuff.

The second point is that the Law offers no hope of salvation.  What I am I saying?  The Law teaches us that we need salvation.  It offers no solution to the problem.  How do we know this?  Jesus pounds on the Pharisees over this issue throughout all four Gospels.  Paul picks it up and says this in Romans 7:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Paul returns to this topic over and over, but see what he says in Philippians 3:

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ…. (Philippians 3:3-8)

So, Paul recognizes that he has no hope through the Law, that his only hope is by the atoning work of Christ Jesus.

But finally, for his first point, let me be more direct.  Read these passages from Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13.  This is the account of the temptation of Jesus.  Now compare this with Genesis 3.         

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5 ESV)

What does Satan offer Jesus?  He offers him food.  He offers him health.  He offers him power.  Satan offers Jesus health, wealth and prosperity.  Hmmm.  Wait a second.  If Satan offers Jesus health, wealth and prosperity, and Jesus says an unhesitating NO to him, what are we to make of the prosperity gospel?  Should we think that our health, wealth and happiness are at the center of God’s concerns for us?  Really?  Let’s try this next passage from 2 Timothy.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.  (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 4:3-5 ESV)

Paul warns Timothy that in the last days, there will come times in which people will be lovers of self, of money and so on.  They will accumulate teachers to suit their own passions.  Health, wealth and prosperity.  I ask you again, does this fit together logically?

Today, an almost angry senior Pastor mentioned a key verse, then he paraphrased it badly.  This is the trick.  Instead of teaching the doctrine from the text, use the text to teach your message.  These are not the same thing.  The verse was Romans 12:2, and I have quoted it often.  R.C. Sproul considers this verse one of the most important in his ministry.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

OK, then, I ask you again.  What does your transformed mind think of the arguments that have been put forth before you above?  Do you still think that health, wealth and prosperity are what living the Christian life is all about?  I will answer that question at the end of the series.  It is the crux of the problem and needs to be addressed.  But for now, let’s hit some other of the questions from the last post.

Repentance.  What is it?  Literally, it is to turn away from something, in our case sin.  Is it possible for us to stop sinning?  No.  Is it possible for us to rid ourselves of the condition of sin?  No.  We have already established that we are powerless against sin.  So, what is repentance?  Look at the Pharisees.  They believed that they fulfilled the Law.  They believed that they were righteous under the Law.  Repentance is nothing more, and nothing less, than a change of attitude towards our condition of sin.  As soon as we recognize that we are condemned under the Law from our condition of sin as well as our specific sins, then we have repented.  We have understood the problem and that we are powerless to fix it.  Repentance in reformed doctrine does not occur without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, but we will come back to that later.  For now, repentance is to stop looking to ourselves for our salvation, and to look outside of ourselves to God.  Is repentance necessary for salvation?  Of course, it is.  For as long as we look to ourselves and not outside of ourselves for salvation, we will never attain it.

And finally for today, let us discuss prophesy.  The common usage of this word is that this is to predict.  Because we have invested so much in this definition, we often lose track of the fact that, scripturally, it has at least two other definitions, both of which come into play in the Bible.  The first is to speak as if divinely inspired.  The second is to instruct or explain.  Let’s look at a typical prophet and see if these definitions all fit.  Isaiah is a typical prophet.  Some would say that Isaiah is the prophet.  Is everything that Isaiah says a prediction of the future?  Absolutely not!  Isaiah spends the vast majority of his book explaining what has already taken place in terms of the Old Covenants.  He is instructing and he is speaking through divine inspiration.  So, when a pastor stands in the pulpit and explains to you about why abortion is evil based upon scripture, citing the text and making a sound argument, that is prophesy.  Here is the key point to make on prophesy.  Go back to our three tools from the beginning and put them to the test.  Those rules must always apply.

Prophesy and rule 1.  It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.  But wait, Jesus is not mentioned in the whole book of Isaiah.  In fact, Jesus is not mentioned by name in the whole Old Testament.  Come, come.  We all know better than this.  Every time that a messianic passage is uttered, that is clearly about Jesus.  But, I want to take this a step farther. The Bible is about the greatest rescue mission of all time.  Here are the highlights: Creation, the Fall, the Law, the end of the Temple and the Diaspora, the Second Temple, the First Coming, the Life of Jesus, the sacrificial death of Jesus, the Arisen Jesus, the Ascension, the present evil age with the age to come breaking through, the Second Coming and Judgment.  That is the Bible narrative.  That is called Redemptive History.  The central figure in Redemptive History is Jesus.  That is why we can say that every word of the Bible is about Jesus.  Every word of the Bible has a redemptive historical context; therefore, we can talk about how every word of the Bible relates to Jesus in either past, present or future redemptive historical context.  Therefore, we can say that the whole book of Isaiah is about Jesus.  In fact, as Christians, we know that this is true.

Prophesy and rule 2.  The Bible never contradicts itself.  I would love to spend pages talking about Isaiah and its relationship to the New Testament.  In fact, three months ago, I did just that.  I looked very briefly and superficially at Isaiah 59 in relation to Romans 3.  In fact, the same themes are repeated throughout the Bible.  They have to be repeated because we stubbornly cling to our idolatry of self! (See rule 1.) Therefore, if there is prophesy, meaning divinely inspired instruction just as much as prediction, then it cannot contradict any other passage of the Bible.  Is there prophesy of both types in the New Testament?  Absolutely!  Paul is the most prolific of the New Testament prophets, but Jesus is clearly a prophet.  We look at the three offices of Jesus to be Prophet, Priest and King.  Not only does Jesus tell us the future, but He spends His entire earthly ministry instructing and explaining.  Jesus one ups the idea of divine inspiration; He clearly is an example of divine expiration, the breathed Word of God.  And so we will see in coming posts that rule 2 is never violated by prophesy.

One last point about rule 2, prophesy never violates rule 2 because prophesy always follows rule 1.  If prophesy is always about Jesus, if prophesy is always about redemptive history, then we can test its validity.  Prophesy is not about you and me, as much as we would like for it to be.  Prophesy must always instruct us concerning Jesus and redemptive history. Remember that there are parts of redemptive history that have not yet come to pass.  I am not excluding the future element of prophesy.  Still, prophesy will always instruct and discuss Jesus and redemptive history.

Prophesy and rule 3.   Starting in Matthew 4, Jesus starts to apply Old Testament verses to himself.  In Matthew 5, Jesus behaves as if He is the one in authority to dispense blessings and curses, i.e. God.  The whole of Jesus’ earthly ministry is explaining, first, how He fulfills all of the predictive elements of prophesy, and then, second, how He will continue in redemptive history to fulfill the salvation of the elect.  Instruction, education, always about Jesus, always about Himself.

That was my soapbox moment for today.  Relating this back to the Holy Spirit, if we believe as Christians in a triune God, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are Three in One, of one substance, and the Father and Son always speak and teach in terms of redemptive history, (they do always speak that way, we can do that exercise if necessary,) then what is the topic of the Holy Spirit in this present evil age?  What does the Holy Spirit do?  Go back to the first post and focus on John 16.  The Holy Spirit will always follow the same rules that God and Jesus follow, always.

One final note.  Some would say that I am putting God in a box.  Some would say that I am putting rules on God, which cannot be done.  My response is this.  The Bible makes those rules about itself.  Understanding that is the beginning of repentance.

--Ogre--

To my Pentecostal brothers and sisters in Christ: (part 1)

This week, our Church is starting a series on the Holy Spirit, entitled “The Grace Awakening: Discovering the Power of the Holy Spirit.” As you embark on this journey, I would put these few small pearls in your brains to keep your rudder under control.

Many of you who read this blog have children in the Noize.  What is the last song that they sing at every show?  “It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.”  Oh, that we would remember that refrain at all times, but most particularly as we read and study the Bible.  The whole Bible is about Jesus, every Word.  So, when we discuss the Holy Spirit in the coming weeks, after every “lesson,” ask yourself whether what you heard was about Jesus, or about you.  It is a simple test.  Try it.  Can you remember a time when you were taught about what Jesus did and why it matters?  Or is it always about our favorite topic, you and me?

Here is another question: does the Bible contradict itself?  If the Bible is the inspired (some would say expired or breathed) Word of God, and we believe God to be the very definition of perfection, how can His Word contradict itself?  Therefore, if we perceive a contradiction, we have interpreted one or the other passage, or both, incorrectly.  This is simple logic.  If A contradicts B, then either A is false, or B is false, or both A and B are false.  Since the Bible is not false, it must be our understanding of that passage that must be false in these instances.  This has to be the case.

Another question: can it be said that quotes from Jesus have more weight than quotes from Paul?  While I would certainly argue that not all verses have equal importance, I am not ready to make this statement.  First of all, Paul never contradicts Jesus in scripture by definition.  If it is in scripture, then by definition, it is the breathed Word of God.  Still, since there are some Red Letter Christians out there, is it reasonable to say that if Jesus voiced a view on a topic first, that Paul should be interpreted in light of what Jesus said about that topic?  Sure, that seems like a reasonable approach.  We can agree on that point as well.

Now, let us apply these three simple principles to some scripture.  To reiterate:

• 1.    It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.
• 2.    The Bible never contradicts itself.
• 3.    If Jesus says something about a topic, perhaps all of the other passages should be interpreted in light of that.

What we are going to do is look at the primary scriptural text regarding the Holy Spirit.  Here are the big ones.  John 14-16, Acts 2-4, 1 Corinthians 12-14.  That is three sections from three authors.  John is an Apostle and an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.  He gives us direct quotes from Jesus.  Luke, the author of Acts, gives us testimony from a second hand source.  We know that he received his information in this way because he tells us thus in Luke 1:2.  We also know that he was a companion of Paul, and therefore an eyewitness to much of the Book of Acts that concerns Paul.  Paul himself wrote 1 Corinthians, or at least dictated it to his scribe.  Paul is an eyewitness to the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. 

John 14-16.

This whole section is a quote from Jesus at the Last Supper, and it actually begins in Chapter 13 and extends down into Chapter 17.  This is an amazing section of scripture.  Take a moment and read it.  I’ve linked it for you in the heading just above.  Now, let’s get down to the key sections.  John 14:15-31  Here, Jesus tells us about the Holy Spirit, whom He calls the Helper.  Verses 16-17: He is the Spirit of Truth.  Verses 25-26: He will teach us about Jesus, and give us remembrance of what Jesus said to us.  John 16: 4b-15  The rubric calls this section the Work of the Holy Spirit!  Surely, we will gain some insight here.  The Helper will not come until Jesus is gone.  He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.  He does not speak on His own authority but only what He hears from Jesus.  He will declare the things that are to come.  He will glorify Jesus and take what is of Jesus and declare it to us.  Heavy stuff.

And so a brief recap of this section can be stated this way.  The Holy Spirit will come to be the Helper, who will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness and judgment, then He will declare the things that are to come concerning Jesus.  The Law and the Gospel.  He will declare the Law that convicts us, and then declare the Gospel and what is to come concerning Jesus.

Now, let us apply our test.  It was all about Jesus.  Yes, the Holy Spirit always testifies about Jesus, what He has done and what He will do on the Last Day.  No internal contradiction.  The Law convicts and Jesus saves.  Now, let’s apply this section to the others for the third test.

Acts 2-4

Before we dive too deeply into Acts 2, let me say a word about Acts 1:5.  This passage is often interpreted as a second event, that we require a second Baptism.  Let me be plain.  If you accept that you require a second baptism of any type, it implies that the resurrection of Jesus was insufficient in some way.  If you do not understand the vicarious atonement and penal substitution, then, perhaps, yes, you might need something else.  But the Christian has no such need of second Baptisms!  The Christian is full of the certain hope in the resurrection, that through Christ, he will receive all of the just rewards in heaven that Christ has promised.  I have gone over some of the exegesis of this question in my last post, almost a month ago now, so let me refer you there, then, I will return to this topic again at the end here.

I want to do something that I don’t often do in these posts.  I want to go out of order.  Skip down to Acts 2:41, 47.

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.  (Acts 2:41 ESV)      

…praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.  (Acts 2:47 ESV)

These are not small statements, indeed, these statement are the point of all that has occurred.  What does Luke say happened that day?  Did 3000 people find their best life now?  Did 3000 people find health, wealth and happiness in this present evil age, in this world?  Did 3000 people have fire dancing on their heads?  Let’s learn some grammar, shall we?  Acts 2:41 is written in passive voice.  This means that the subject of the sentence is not the 3000, nor the ones who received his word, but rather they are the object of the verb baptized.  These 3000 didn’t do anything.  They were acted upon by the Holy Spirit through the Words of Peter, who were given to him by the Holy Spirit.  The book is called the Acts of the Apostles, not the acts of all the people who received His Word.  The people received his word.  They didn’t seek it.  They didn’t go on a search party for the truth.  In fact, most of them were minding their own business being good Jews, when they happened upon this guy Peter speaking loudly in their native tongue about another Jewish guy, who they thought was dead, who turned out to be the messiah after all.

What did most Jews in the first century think was their largest problem?  Was it righteousness?  No, they had the Law and their sacrifices; they were covered there.  Was it health, wealth and prosperity?  Certainly, Jesus and the Apostles went around healing people, but they thought that disease was a consequence of sin.  They had sin covered by the sacrifices.  No, they had bigger fish to fry than personal affluence and happiness.  It was the Roman occupation!  They believed that their largest problem was that this piece of dirt that was promised to them by God hundreds of years earlier, but that they had lost through their own disobedience, was still not their own piece of dirt again.  And we would all say about them today that they sort of missed the point.  Jesus tried to explain this to them over and over.  The pharisaical righteousness that they claimed was falling miles short of the mark.  Jesus tried to explain to them repeatedly that their biggest problem was an issue of righteousness before God on the Last Day in judgment for their sin.

Today, what do we see as our largest problem?  Is it righteousness?  No, we have Jesus for an example, and we can work out our righteousness through His example.  Is it health, wealth and prosperity?  We don’t think that misfortune is the result of sin any longer.  So, for many, yes it is the biggest problem.  Is it that Israel is now back on that piece of dirt (though not all of it, not even all of Jerusalem,) and a new enemy has arisen against them?  For many more, yes it is.  Now, you icons of proficiency in English grammar, do you see the parallel construction of these last two paragraphs?  Let me spell it out for you in table form.

First Century	Today
Righteousness by the Law	Righteousness by Works
Health, wealth and prosperity	Health wealth and prosperity
Israel occupied	Israel partially occupied

OK, do these columns look similar?  What can we say about these three Jewish opinions in the First Century?  That they were wrong?  Jesus said that they were.  Now, look at the second list.  What has changed in this list?  Did Jesus give us any reason to believe that this list is any less wrong today?  Hmmm, we’ll come back to that question.

What were the conclusions of Acts 2:41, 47?  Souls were being saved.  Salvation is the issue.  Salvation is our biggest problem.  We don’t have it.  We need it.  Jesus came to do it for us and then give it away.  So, we can agree perhaps, that according to Jesus, Peter, and Paul, that our greatest problem is Salvation.

Ok, are you with me so far?  Let’s get to another key verse. 

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:37-39 ESV)

Wow!  This looks like action!  This is something for us to do!  Repent!  Wait.  What is that and what does it mean and why do we need to do it?  Be baptized!  Wait.  We just said that we cannot Baptize ourselves.  We receive Baptism from someone else.  You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Stop!  Another gift!  That means we have to sit and wait for someone else to do the giving!  We can’t go get it, we have to receive it.  Now, I like this next part.  It’s about a promise for me and my children and everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.  Oh, no.  God does the calling?  God does the calling to himself?  What if we don’t hear him call?  What if we do?  Then what?

My friends, this is the point.  There is a Holy Spirit.  His job is to bridge this gap that you are starting to perceive, this gap between God and man.  You know about a promise now, but to whom was it made?  You know about a gift, but you don’t know how to receive it.  The gift is about Salvation.  I hope that at least in this first part, we have made that much plain.  These first parts are the building blocks upon which we will build the rest of Acts 2-4 and Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians.

Maranatha!

--Ogre--

Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

It was asked of me this past week, whether I believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is a complicated topic. First, I will describe what is usually meant by the concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit. Second, I will describe what I would refer to as a more orthodox theology concerning this issue.  Finally, I will demonstrate through textual references, which of these two positions is more biblically authentic.

The concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit is usually put forward by Pentecostal groups concerning the idea of a higher level of Christian. In this theology, what we find is that the individual is baptized into Christ through water, and then requires a second baptism by the Holy Spirit, or by fire, into the higher, more complete realm of being a Christian. The basic theology this mode of thinking requires is a separation of justification from sanctification. What this entails is that justification occurs at the time of water baptism, while sanctification occurs sometime later based upon an experience of the individual involving the Holy Spirit. This also leaves several areas of concern regarding the relationship between true believers and the idea of the so-called “carnal Christians."  Carnal Christians are justified by baptism, but continue to lead lives of a lower level of piety, never making Jesus “Lord of their life” and continuing to live as if there was no baptism.  In fact, they could become atheists and still claim their baptism for salvation.  But the higher level Christian, the "mature Christian," has a baptism of the Holy Spirit, an experience in which that person feels the touch of the Holy Spirit transform their lives.  The usual manifestation that is considered proof of this baptism by the Holy Spirit is the skill of glossolalia or speaking in tongues. Other gifts of the Holy Spirit are also considered within the realm of proof of this baptism by the Holy Spirit. Typical of this group are prophecy, dreams, visions, healing, and other such activities.  The rewards of this higher level are usually discussed in terms of “jewels in my crown,” referring loosely to Zechariah 9:16, 2 Timothy 4:8, Revelation 2:10, and 1 Peter 5:4.  There is no true exegesis that occurs in this theology, but rather an eisegesis based upon a whole house of cards created by bad hermeneutics.  What this means is that when we give away logic to the devil, we have no framework in which to interpret the Word.  Said another way, if two passages seem to say the opposite, then your understanding of one or both is wrong.

The orthodox Reformed look at this theology is decidedly different. First of all, sanctification is not considered a separate event from justification. Rather, sanctification and justification occur simultaneously at water baptism. Because justification and sanctification occur simultaneously, there is the possibility, nay, the necessity, of a person being justified, sanctified and in the process of becoming sanctified, all three simultaneously, based upon the single event of water baptism.  Therefore, there is no category for separate events of justification and sanctification. The categories of carnal Christian and higher level Christian are nonexistent.  There is only one category of believer.  There are two types of people in church, but the categories are decidedly different.  In a future post, if reminded by the recipient of this missive, I will breakdown these reformed categories based upon Covenant Theology.

Coming back to our discussion of the Holy Spirit, once again, a full systematic theology is helpful in discerning the differences between these two views of the works of the Holy Spirit. Starting with the impact of original sin, and using the classic debate between Augustine and Pelagius as a template for the discussion, we can lay out three basic positions on the impact of Adam's sin on humanity. In the full Pelagian position, the sin of Adam is not imputed to all of mankind. Adam merely introduces the possibility of sin into the world.  Free will remains untouched.  Adam is a bad example. In the semi-Pelagian position, Adam tarnishes humanity with sin; and the ability to choose well, free will, was tarnished, but is redeemable by Christ. The Augustinian position is decidedly different. Augustine viewed original sin as introducing a condition of sin to mankind whereby all aspects of mankind were affected by sin. This includes free will. Therefore, mankind became incapable of following the law. Mankind became incapable of seeking God.  A full Pelagian has no need of Jesus.  A semi-Pelagian is grateful to Jesus for making salvation possible, but still has to work out his own salvation.  The Augustinian is in a real jam.  He is in a desperate plight and has no way out on his own.  The Augustinian is in desperate need of divine intervention. 

The role of the atonement is likewise viewed through different lenses. The full Pelagian view of the atonement is that Christ was the perfect example, where as Adam was the sinful example. There was no real need for Christ to die, because it was his good example that matters to us.  He teaches us ultimate virtue and morality.  The semi-Pelagian view of the atonement is that Christ wipes our slates clean including our free wills making us now capable of filling the law. Again, Christ makes salvation possible.  The Augustinian view of the atonement is that Christ imputes righteousness to believers, justifying them on judgment day, but it does not affect our free will or our condition of sin. We remain in Adam while we are in this world.  But the righteousness of Christ has been accounted to us and our sin has been accounted to Christ in the great exchange.

Extending each of these logically to the area of sanctification, we can now make the following conclusions. A full Pelagian worldview actually has very little need for Christ. In this system, Adam is merely a bad example, while Christ is a good example. Since a believer in this system really didn't get much from Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, there is plenty of room for "something else." It is into this feeling of emptiness, that the Pentecostal places this idea of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Because nothing much was attained by the sacrifice of God’s son, more is required to attain our full eternal reward. The semi-Pelagian view of sanctification is one in which we are constantly working towards perfection. Because our slate was cleaned by Christ, we are now on a cosmic balance scale of sorts hoping to tip our scale towards the side of righteousness. The Holy Spirit's job in the system is to lend assistance in our endeavors toward righteousness. The Augustinian view of sanctification is different. We are at once justified and simultaneously sanctified at the time of baptism. We are in a lifelong process of being sanctified simultaneous with our declaration of justification and sanctification. Our efforts are genuinely in the direction of righteousness because we are covenant members with Christ and through Christ. But these works have no bearing on our righteousness, because our righteousness was declared to us as being imputed from Christ to us at time of baptism. Similarly, our sin is imputed to Christ; so that time of judgment, we may approach the throne of God with confidence clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Christ has already bore the sin of the believers, having once and for all time been the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

So, which argument has the best support from Scripture? Let's start by looking at the Prophets.  In Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, mankind is clearly declared incapable of following the law. Several of the Psalms echo this problem. Paul's summary of this Old Testament view of the sin of mankind can be found in Romans 3: 1-20.  No one does good; no, not even one. No one seeks God. Their mouths are an open grave. Several places discuss this as well within the parables and teachings of Jesus. Matthew 5: 48 gives us the words be you therefore perfect.  So, logically, if Jesus is telling us to be perfect, and Paul points out that we can't be perfect, we have a problem. Therefore, the bigger view of Jesus, that is, the Augustinian view, becomes necessary to solve this problem.

So, if the Holy Spirit isn't here to give us a second baptism of sorts, why did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? Lucky for us, Jesus answers this question for us.  John 14 to 16 gives us a detailed description of the work of the Holy Spirit. The job of the Holy Spirit is to testify about Jesus, his work, his purpose, his identity, and his saving grace. It is the Holy Spirit that gives us the gift of grace, the gift of faith, the gift of knowledge in the redeeming work of Christ through his death, resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit is actually quite busy without doing parlor tricks on our command.  The reason the Pentecostal believes that there has to be more, is that the Pentecostal does not understand original sin, the Holiness of God, and just how absolutely desperate his plight actually is.  Without a full understanding of sin and the condition of sin, we cannot appreciate how truly amazing Grace really is.  The bigger the problem, the bigger the solution has to be.  Augustinians have no need for something more.  The work of Christ and his Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, has to be absolutely huge beyond imagination to accomplish redemption for the believers.

The usual places to which the Pentecostal references the Holy Spirit are Acts 2 and 4, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. A basic tenet of hermeneutics is that the Bible should interpret the Bible. Interpretation of these passages without account for the John passages is bad hermeneutics. But more than that, interpretation of Acts 2 without regard to the actual sermon by Peter in that same chapter is bad hermeneutics. A reasoned approach to all of these passages is to keep things in Biblical and redemptive historical context. Look and see what the context of speaking in tongues is in Acts 2.  The apostles are not babbling senseless noise. They are speaking in the native languages of all of the different peoples who are there to hear them. 3000 people were converted that day, not because of some emotional experience, but because of the convincing words of the apostles in their testimony about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I can say that is because of the work of the Holy Spirit that I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I can say that because of the work of the Holy Spirit at my baptism, I am a new covenant member in Christ. Therefore, I can say that because of the work of the Holy Spirit, I have knowledge of the gospel, of Christ's redeeming work on the cross, and of the justification and sanctification that his death, resurrection and ascension earned on my behalf and was imputed to me at baptism, but that I will not actually receive until death or the last day, whichever comes first. Truly, the Holy Spirit has been very busy in my life.

Hebrews 3

Therefore.  Today’s passage begins, once again, with therefore.  The last section of chapter 2 dealt with Jesus becoming a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.  The rest that follows is in light of that declaration, the key declaration of chapter 2.  But chapter 3 has a large quote stuck smack in the middle of it.  So, let’s go to Psalm 95 first, and see the context of that Psalm, then return to Hebrews and see how the writer of Hebrews contextualizes that Psalm.

The theme of chapter 3, perhaps the whole book of Hebrews, is true faith.  True faith is a faith placed in the correct place.  Faith always has an object (hint: look up to blue letters just above.) Before we jump back into the Old Testament, notice the first half of verse 7 first, Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says….  The writer is stating that the Holy Spirit was speaking the words of Psalm 95.  Jumping to John 14-16, we know that the Holy Spirit always speaks of the redeeming plan of God through Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the writer of Hebrews is saying that Psalm 95 is in some way about Jesus.  Now, we are almost ready to go there.

Psalm 94 is going to be our starting point.  Read it now.  Since we are already in chapter 6 of Hebrews, some of this is going to sound terribly familiar.  As you read Psalm 94, ask yourself to whom the Psalmist is speaking in verse 8.  Understand, O dullest of the people!  Fools, when will you be wise?  Now, just for a second, go peak at Hebrews 5:11.  About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.  It is probably obvious that dull is not complementary.  One last section of Psalm 94 before we move on: verses 14-15.  For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; 15 for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it.  I want you to hear these images, and just let them register for now.  Later, we will put all the images together into a collage, and from there a larger picture will emerge.

Psalm 95:1-7a fits in nicely with the Psalms of praise before and after.  But stuck into this string of praise, is 94 and 95:7b-11. 

Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness, 9 when your fathers put me to the test and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.  10 For forty years I loathed that generation and said, “They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.” 11 Therefore I  swore in my wrath, “They shall not enter my rest.”

Now, in Bible study, we learned that these words refer to events in Exodus 17:1-7.  But the key to this passage is the issues of hearts and rest.

Let’s go back to Psalm 94 and see that God will not abandon his heritage, and then in Psalm 95 that the fathers put God to the test, and he loathed them for it.  This is tough stuff.  Whenever I hear nominal Christians suggest that Jesus loves me, and he just wants me to do my best, or that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin, I think of passages like this. The fathers of that generation of Israel put God to the test, and He loathed them for it.  That sort of gives pause to how we choose to pray, does it not?  What is going on in those verses?

Now, for the heart, we are asked not to harden our hearts, because justice with return to the righteous, and all the upright of heart will follow it.  Upright is a virtual synonym for righteous in this phrase.  So, this all sounds like a command.  But what we have to realize is that this is Psalms, the center of the Old Testament.  David wrote many of these Psalms.  The covenants are all in play at this point, as we are prior to the Diaspora in redemptive history.  The key point is that the Sinai Covenant, or Mosaic Covenant, is a conditional covenant.  Do this and ye shall live; do it not and ye shall perish.  This is a Law passage.  What happened to Israel later in redemptive history?  They failed at keeping the Law, and were therefore thrown out of the promised land.  So, who then, ultimately are the righteous, the upright of heart?  We know from Psalms 5, 10, 14 and 36,  Isaiah 59 and 64, and Romans 1-3, that no one is righteous, no, not even one.  Look at Ecclesiastes 7:20.  Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.  So, who are the righteous, the upright of heart?  No one.  No one qualifies.  That is the point of the Law.  After the Fall, no one is capable of fulfilling the Law. 

But, we also have the part about God not abandoning His heritage.  Which covenant is still intact after the Diaspora?  Stop looking at Moses, and set your eyes upon Abraham.  That covenant is a royal grant that is guaranteed by God.  Upon what basis was Abraham deemed righteous?  Was he obedient to the Law?  I would remind you of the episode with his wife in Egypt.  He is declared righteous because he believes in the promise of God.  He did not earn this declaration by his works.  He did not deserve this declaration.  He received this declaration based upon his faith in the promise of God.

Reformed theology, and remember that the Episcopal Church is a reformed church, understands that the Bible is pounding away at the notion that the heart is evil, that man is not capable of good.  So, when we are told not to harden our heart, we are being asked to do the impossible.  All that we are capable of doing as fallen people is to turn away from God and harden our hearts.  It is God who seeks us.  God, through the power and work of the Holy Spirit, gathers the sheep and gives them the gift of faith.  We, the elect, receive that faith in the work of Jesus on the Cross and his propitiation on our behalves, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And now, finally, let’s go to Chapter 3, starting with verse 12.   

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 

Remember who the audience of Hebrews is: a believing community of Christians, who are predominantly of Jewish heritage.  The faith of the elect is through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, that is a faith that cannot be turned aside.  Jesus will not lose even one of his flock.  So, who then can these others be who are able to harden their hearts?

The answer is within that word that follows along from Old Testament to New Testament, describing the set of people known as believers: remnant.  To understand this whole comment, the Calvinist doctrine of visible and invisible church is helpful.  Suppose instead of church, we are talking about the Old Testament covenants.  There are clearly benefits to being a Jewish citizen during the time of David, unless your name is Uriah.  But while all Jewish citizens share in these same benefits, only a few are both in the family of Israel and also believers in the promise of God to Abraham.  Most of Israel viewed the covenants through the conditional covenant of Moses at Sinai.  Therefore, the object of their faith was on their own righteousness (or perceived self-righteousness) rather than upon the righteousness that is a gift from God through his promise as it is made known to us by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, there were some who benefited from being with the overall covenant community, but were not, in fact, a part of that remnant of whom the Bible speaks.  In the same way, the church is full of a group of people who benefit from being members of that community.  But some of them may not believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  They might not have been given the gift of true faith through the power of the Holy Spirit.  These people would be sitting in church on Sunday, and listening to the sermon given by the writer of Hebrews.  These people are not true believers.  They will harden their hearts towards God.  This is the natural state of man.  Except for the Holy Spirit and His gift of belief by Mercy and Grace to the remnant elect, there we would all be, everyone of us.

So, who falls away and who holds fast to their faith in Jesus’ redeeming work and propitiation on our behalf to the end?  The people who give lip service to the gospel, but lack true believe: those will fall away.  The people who have received the gift of true faith in Christ’s redeeming work: those will persevere to the end, but not of their own doing.  It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that it is possible for anyone.

Now, look at verses 16-19.  Who were those who rebelled in the time of Moses?  Who were the ones who persevered and entered into His rest?  Verse 19 says: So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.  It’s right there in the text.  Belief is the criteria for boldly claiming the inheritance. 

In chapter 4, we are going to discuss this idea of His rest.

--Troll--