A few days ago Dan Phillips wrote a scathing piece over at Pyromaniacs about a Christianity Today article called My Conversation with God. It’s a very good piece of writing that raises issues continuationists such as myself need to seriously consider. It is also contains one or two assessments that rely more on an entrenched cessationist view than biblical evidence or reasoning. I’d like to comment on both. Continue Reading »

I speak in tongues.  Yes, I do.  No, I have never spoken in tongues during a meeting and had someone interpret it, but I often do speak in tongues when I pray.

Yes, I have heard many arguments against tongues as a gift for today.  I know that, depending on who you listen to, anyone who claims to speak in tongues today is either speaking a) “demonic tongues”, b) a codified language but not a natural human language (D.A. Carson), c) a different spiritual utterance gift from the gift of tongues in the New Testament, but a valid gift for today that is totally unsubstantiated by Scripture (J.I. Packer), d) heavenly languages and/or e) earthly languages.

Me?  Well, this is my experience…

Continue Reading »

My recent revisit of the issue of water baptism led me to re-read my Spirit Baptism series. I have now come to far firmer conclusions about Spirit Baptism, though I haven’t solved all the difficulties.

Conclusion #1: Baptism in the Spirit refers to a complete and overwhelming influence of the Spirit on a person - and this is definitely what we see in biblical accounts.

Following my reading into the Greek verb baptizo and noun baptismo, it seems that, regardless of the method and whether figurative or literal, these words indicate a final complete effect on the object: complete immersion, complete cleansing, complete influence, complete change.  The use of the phrase “baptised with the Holy Spirit” (eg. Acts 1:5) therefore indicates a similar final effect - a complete overwhelming by the Spirit of God.

The New Testament seems to confirm this concept by linking it to the negative example of drunkenness in Acts 2:13-15 and Ephesians 5:18 (see also 1 Corinthians 12:13) - also described (figuratively) by the word ”baptise” outside of Scripture. 

Conclusion #2: The phrase “Baptism in the Spirit” refers to exactly the same experience as “being filled with the Spirit”, “receiving the Spirit” and so on…in both the Old and New Testaments.

While to some this might seem obvious by the interchangability of these phrases in Acts, others see “baptism in the Spirit” as an almost completely separate experience from “filling” and “receiving”.  A quick look at where the phrase is used, however, shows that “baptism in the Spirit” is never used apart from a comparison to John’s baptism (except in 1 Corinthians 12:13 where baptism is referring to the spiritual reality of the joining (adoption) of a believer to the body of Christ in conversion represented by water baptism rather than a filling of the Spirit). 

Taking something known and using it to explain a spiritual truth is not unusual in Jesus’ teaching, and it would seem that Jesus was doing that when he employed that phrase, i.e. John baptises you with water (pours water over you to completely ceremonially clean you through your repentance) but Jesus will baptise you with the Spirit (pour the Spirit over you to completely overwhelm you with power through your faith in Jesus).  So, baptism in the Spirit is nothing more than a different name for something that has always been around.

But there are two new things about the NT baptism/filling etc of the Spirit: 

1) the resurrected Christ will be the one pouring the Spirit out on people, i.e. the Spirit comes through Jesus because of His atoning sacrifice; and

2) because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, it is available to all people.

Conclusion #3: The difference between the Spirit in us to convert us and the Spirit poured out on and overwhelming us is largely a matter of degree.  (The terms many people use to distinguish between these are “indwelling” and “filling” respectively, but I am not convinced the Bible consistently uses those terms in that way).

A reading of OT and NT accounts where people are baptised in/are filled with/have received the Spirit (e.g. here) shows that it is an overwhelming experience resulting in action or speech.  This is at odds with the experience of many of today’s Christians.  Other verses in the NT indicate that without the Spirit, a person is not a Christian, but it is certainly wrong to say that someone who has not had an experience of being overwhelmed by the Spirit is not a Christian.  So what is the explanation?

While the Bible indicates there is a distinction between having the Spirit converting us (and remaining with us - see 1 Corinthians 2:12) - and being filled with the Spirit, there seems little Scriptural evidence that the two have differing long term results.  It would seem instead that the same Spirit - whether having converted the believer or having been poured out on the believer - works to bring about sanctification and empower people.  More than that, a Christian who has not experienced the Spirit poured out and overwhelming them still receives the Spirit in a less dramatic way through the word and prayer, as should all Christians.

So what is the benefit of experiencing being overwhelmed by the Spirit as opposed to accessing the Spirit through Bible reading and prayer?

It’s a difference of degree.  While being overwhelmed by the Spirit does not necessarily make a Christian more holy, wise, godly or mature in the long-term, being overwhelmed occurs to allow the Spirit to work more freely through you for certain tasks (eg. witnessing, preaching) and provides the believer with a greater experiential sense of the love and power of God through Jesus.  Who would not want that?

Degree also accounts for the fact that those who believe in the experience of being overwhelmed are far more likely to experience “charismatic” gifts because the Spirit is influencing the believer’s behaviour and tongue far more than those who are not.  Note, I did not say that those who do not experience being overwhelmed by the Spirit will not experience “charismatic” gifts - they have the same Spirit and so access to the same charismata, but it is telling that those who are not in favour of “baptism in the Spirit” are far less likely to experience them.

Conclusion #4: Despite the last conclusion, the distinction between the Spirit in a person to convert and enlighten and the Spirit poured out remains.

Acts 8:14-17 is one example where the distinction is clear.  And yet, Acts can still talk about Christians “receiving the (Holy) Spirit“ as if they did not have the Spirit in them at all.  But a closer look at the two earliest uses in Acts 2:33 and 38 provide more specific parameters: receiving not just the Holy Spirit, but the promise and gift of the Holy Spirit.

This promised gift is distinct from the Spirit’s unconscious presence before, during and after conversion.  The promised gift is shown to be an conscious, experienced, pouring out of the Spirit on a believer, an “overwhelming”, as has been said here repeatedly.  Therefore it is possible to say, “Have you received the Spirit?” (cf. Acts 19:2) to a Christian who already has the Spirit of Christ in them, because what you are asking is, “Have you received the Spirit in the way that was promised - a conscious, experiential, overwhelming reception?”

Three illustrations to…well…illustrate. 

Here are three illustrations that might make make the relationship between the Spirit as all Christians have Him and the (repeated) filling of the Spirit clearer.

The first is from Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones borrowing an illustration from Puritan Thomas Goodwin:

[Thomas Goodwin] describes a man and his little child, his son, walking down the road and they are walking hand in hand, and the child knows that he is the child of his father, and he knows that his father loves him, and he rejoices in that, and he is happy in it. There is no uncertainty about it all, but suddenly the father, moved by some impulse, takes hold of the child and picks him up, fondles him in his arms, kisses him, embraces him, showers his love upon him, and then he puts him down again and they go on walking together.

That is it! The child knew before that his father loved him, and he knew that he was his child. But oh! the loving embrace, this extra outpouring of love, this unusual manifestation of it - that is the kind of thing. The Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God”

(Joy Unspeakable, Eastbourne, 1995, p104.  Also quoted by John Piper in this biographical message).

A second illustration is similar: Think of a husband and wife.  The difference in relationship is almost tangible between times when they show a lot of affection to each other and times that they do not.  If they do not show much affection to each other, this does not mean their love is any less genuine and deep - life will go on, they may walk together and enjoy each other and start a family.  But if love is constantly communicated - often overwhelmingly - the more confidence they have in the other’s love for them, the more secure they feel, the more joy they experience and the more open they are to each other influencing their lives.

This is a picture of what happens when the Spirit overwhelms a believer.  The believer may trust that he is loved, have evidence of that in their lives and be effective in ministry, but when overwhelmed by the Spirit, he is more confident in God’s love by having deeply experienced it and more open to God moving through him.

The third illustration may be one that other people can relate to better:  

Mark has two close friends he values equally: Greg he shares deeply with and also is able to go out and do things together - both for serious tasks and for fun; Ted he shares deeply with but Ted does not feel as free to go out with Mark and let his hair down.

When Greg and Ted talk together about their relationship with Mark, Greg suggests that Ted, too, can have a laugh with Mark - it’s something Mark invites all his friends to do.  Ted, however, suggests that Greg is implying that those who don’t have a laugh with Mark have a second class relationship with him.  But what Greg is saying is not that Ted is not as good a friend, or that Mark does not care for Ted as much as Greg - both are completely untrue.  Instead, Greg is encouraging Ted that there is more to relating to Mark that Ted can take advantage of.  Of course, the opposite could happen - it is possible that Greg will neglect the more serious side of a relationship with Mark in favour of going out and having a good time.

(This last illustration could be criticised as painting the filling of the Spirit being for no other purpose than ”letting your hair down”.  That was not the intention.  Rather, it was to illustrate the greater experiential intimacy in areas outside of the “normal” Christian experience life.)

None of these illustrations deny the reality of the Spirit in any Christian’s life, but what they do suggest is that God’s intention for Christian believers is to have an overwhelming experience of the Spirit of God poured into their lives to empower them and experientially assure them of His love.  To use a wedding illustration, if baptism is taking the vows (1 Peter 3:21), being filled with the Spirit through the laying on of hands is the kiss afterward - it is not what makes a couple married, but it is the down payment on what marriage promises.

Those are my firmer conclusions.  They are not meant to make Christians obsessed with seeking spiritual experiences, but, rather, open them up to asking in faith for the overwhelming touch from Jesus and greater power that is promised as we seek Jesus and put Him first and foremost.

I’ve added two new links to the sidebar under “Good Websites”.  I don’t personally know that they are good, but I got them from a couple of guys who recommended them and I’m taking the risk.

First, Aaron pointed me toward Bibilical Training which looks a great resource to get some teaching from.  Thanks Aaron.

Second, Andrew has recommended the lecture archives of Calvin Theological Seminary.  I don’t imagine it will be stuff to build your faith on (making judgments purely by some of the names there) but I’m sure there’ll be heaps to chew over.  Thanks Andrew.

There is no end of people willing to give advice about what to do with a new-born and we have had advice whether asked for or not.  I am not asking for advice here!!!  What I am asking for is an account of how anyone else has dealt with their babies - just because I’m interested.  I’m curious about what other people have done/are doing.  And if we like what you say, we may even try it.

Here is what we (experts of almost 3 weeks) are doing:

1. We have a schedule of six feeds a day.  The schedule allows for an hour for feeding and then three hours between the end of one feed and the beginning of the next.

2. This schedule is a guideline only.  We operate on the rule of thumb that during the day periods between feeds are no less than two hours and no more than three.  At night, we let Lylie sleep as long as she does and then catch up on feeds missed during the day.  All of this helps us to keep track of feeding and know that she is well fed, despite her cries and her tongue poking out of her mouth.

3. She is usually bathed once a day.

4. No schedule or rule of thumb is set in concrete.

Things we do that pre-baby we had decided definitely not to do:  We let her sleep in our bed with us.  It makes me feel better that this is something done the world over except in the West, and considering the bizzare ideas that come out of the West, I’m not that worried about it at this stage.  We’re planning to get her into her own cot soon…but one thing at a time.

Things we’re seriously thinking of doing that pre-baby we had definitely decided not to do:  Giving Lylie a dummy/pacifier.  Like a doctor we went to said, babies suck on anything - may as well give her something that’s hygienic.

Things I’m personally suprised at: 

I find the contents of dirty nappies very interesting.

Our little baby could hold my attention all day by just lying there.

Being puked on is not so bad.

I’m not scared.

Things I’m not suprised about:

Paula is a great Mum.

One of the things that comforts me in all this is that, for all the passion about how parents should deal with their new-borns, by the time they become adults no one will be turning up their noses at them saying, “Oh, you were bottle-fed”, or lording it over others because they were breast-fed.  And for all the well-meant mistakes we make, we are trusting in God’s grace.

So, how have you dealt with your baby?

Some years ago, I preached on Genesis 2 and the beginning of humanity.  During the message I explained that God made Eve to help Adam and complete him.  Then I answered a tricky question with the following illustration (recreated from notes):

If the man was made complete by the woman, does that mean that single people are incomplete? 

No.  Single people are whole people made in the image of God.  Marriage is not the joining of two halves, but the joining of two wholes into a new whole. 

Think about digging holes.  Have you ever realised it is impossible to dig half a hole?  You can dig a half-sized hole, but not half a hole.  Think about it.  No one ever came across someone who has dug a hole and says, “Hey, I see you’ve dug half a hole!”  No, they say, “I see you’ve dug a hole”.

It’s the same with people.  People cannot be half a whole - they are always whole no matter who, what or where they are.  One person is a whole.

Now, suppose you dug two holes close together, and then decided to break down the dirt separating them.  What do you have?  A double hole?  No.  You still have a hole.  Two holes joined together make one hole.

One hole is not half a hole and two holes joined together are not a double hole.  The truth of the matter is this: Everybody’s whole.

Okay, it’s got some holes in it (gawuff, gawuff), but I then went on to explain that Adam as the human race was incomplete without woman.  As long as there are both genders, the human race will be whole.

Penal substitution is the term for God punishing Jesus for our sins on the cross and so justly freeing us from punishment we deserve.  Most Christians would understand that to be the gospel.  Did I say most Christians?

There are a growing number of people questioning the centrality of penal substitution.  Some say it may be one way to understand what Jesus did on the cross, but it is not central.  Others outright deny it’s theological, biblical and historical validity.  That is why a book called, Pierced for our Transgressions. Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution has been written in defence of this truth.  I plan to buy and read this book.

But what I want to write about here is something that jumped out at me from an article called, What’s all the fuss about? at the book’s website.

After going through the reasons for the book, the author’s quickly address a few of the historical, exegetical and theological arguments against penal substitution.  It was the theological one that got me going.

Some claim that penal substitution makes God guilty of injustice, inflicting punishment on an innocent man. Such a doctrine, they say, plainly contradicts the Scriptural teaching that guilty people, and only guilty people, should be punished: ‘Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent – the LORD detests them both’ (Proverbs 17:15).

The answer the authors of the book give - an answer that I, obviously like those who put forward this objection, never saw before - is that it is because we are in union with Christ our sin actually becomes His (1 Corinthians 5:21), and His righteousness becomes ours.  It is not like the popular illustration of the lawyer in front of the judge saying, “I will take the punishment for this guilty person”, leaving the innocent lawyer to be punished and the guilty set free.  Instead, it’s more like a marriage when two become one, i.e. a wife’s debts become her husband’s, and the husband’s riches become his wife’s!  The husband pays the debts and the wife enjoys the husband’s wealth and their oneness continues.

Therefore, when God was punishing Jesus, he was not being unjust - he was punishing sin that had been joined to his Son through us.

The reason that I got excited about this was because it fits in well with the baptism illustration in Romans 6:3-4.  It is not going down into the grave that the baptism is illustrating - joining Jesus in death is acheived by the union baptism is illustrating!

Verse 3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Notice, we are baptised into his death because we have been baptised into him.

Union with Christ, therefore, opens up many doors.  It explains why how we are treated is how Christ is treated (Matthew 25:40, 45), and how Paul can say, “in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Colossians 1:24) - united with Christ, God is still allowing suffering to affect Christ’s body - and therefore, Christ himself - to bring it to maturity (Hebrews 5:8).

Okay, for some of you I’m way behind the times.  But there is much more to be discovered in this vein…

Our daughter, Lylie Alicia, is born. 

Beautiful?  You bet!!!  

Paula and baby are both well.  Thanks to those who have been praying and thanks to those who have been thinking of us - God has blessed us more than we deserve.  Thanks to Him.