Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 41)
Search Results for: worship
The Pagan Worldview of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism
Sometime Monday, I’ll continue my series Reductio Ad Absurdum: Conservative Evangelicalism Meets the Doctrine of Separation (parts one and two). This brief break is directly related to those posts.
There is only one God. The one God is the Truth and, therefore, there is one truth. These first two statements are foundational to a Christian worldview. The two are also interdependent.
Enter evangelicalism and fundamentalism. I’m sure all fundamentalists and most evangelicals would say “yes” to both statements. They agree. But they really don’t. They probably both believe the first statement, but, again, the two statements are interdependent. You can’t have one without the other. God is Truth. There is one God. If you believe in more than one Truth, you are now not talking about the same God. The one and only God is defined by Truth. He defines Himself by Truth. The God is the Truth that He says about Himself. He is Who He is. Our understanding of Him is the Truth. And there is one Truth.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists think and believe a world of more than one Truth. They say there is one. But two or more is actually fine. They even encourage a world of more than one. And if you believe in a world of one, you cannot continue with them. You won’t fit in with evangelicalism and fundamentalism with only one Truth.
I’m asking you to think about this, to give it strong consideration. Don’t just dismiss it because it seems extreme and over the top. More than one Truth can coexist in an evangelical and fundamentalist world. Not in God’s world, but in their world. And once you’ve allowed for that, you are now on common ground with paganism. Paganism lives in the worldview of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. The two would deny paganism, but paganism lives in their worldview.
The very existence of evangelicalism and fundamentalism depends upon paganism. It depends upon more than One Truth and, therefore, more than one God. No Christian should think or believe that way, but evangelicalism and fundamentalism both encourage that thought and belief.
Your head may be wagging fast and hard back and forth (try going up and down). What I’m saying is truth. Just consider it. The two truths of evangelicalism and fundamentalism they call an essential truth and a non-essential truth. Instant protest. I know. You say those aren’t two truths. But they really are. Scripture does not provide this designation to truth, essential and non-essential. Truth, by its nature, is all essential. It is One, because God is One.
The two truths, essential and non-essential, really are about allowing for error. When something is non-essential, you really don’t have to be right about it. You must be right on the essential truth in this worldview. And the modern version of this was invented by evangelicalism and fundamentalism. The line that falls between essential and non-essential is regularly changing. It’s a big and common argument among evangelicals and fundamentalists. I believe they put more intensity into where that line is drawn than they do about the defense of the actual truth itself. For instance, as someone reads this, he would be more angry about this than he would be if I said that it doesn’t matter if there were three conflicting beliefs about eschatology.
Sometimes I talk about pagans borrowing from a Christian worldview, which they must do in order to argue for any view. However, Christians borrow from a pagan worldview for their essential and non-essential truth view. They live in a world of contradictions and conflict. This is not the Father’s world.
So why? Why have this pagan worldview? I can’t say that the reasons are in this order or especially that these are all of them, but here are some.
First, getting along is more important than the Truth. Some say that the gospel is first in importance, but they act like getting along is first in importance. We don’t need large coalitions. The Bible is against them. I could, at this point, explain why getting along is so important to evangelicals and fundamentalists, but it’s not my emphasis here.
Second, evangelicals and fundamentalists don’t believe in one Bible. They are fine with two or more sets of Words. That makes a difference. If you don’t know what the Words are, then you can’t know what the interpretation is. You, therefore, must give leeway. I could say that the ‘two Bibles’ is the second reason with a closely related third reason that we then can’t be sure what the Bible says. This abolishes the doctrine of perspicuity. They will say they believe it, but, in fact, do not.
Third, a wrong ecclesiology. I’m not going to elaborate on this, as I have many times before, because I don’t want to take this post off course.
Fourth, rationalism, modernism, secularism, and humanism. Humanism sees truth as relative, not objective. Truth is arrived at through dialectics. You may say that that evangelicalism and fundamentalism don’t believe this. They practice it. I see them as influenced by the worldly philosophy like the Corinthians were by the worldly philosophy of their days (which Paul deals with in 1 Cor 1-3).
This having more than one Truth has brought disaster. It has ruined worship, art, literature, the roles of men and women, education, and the family. It will only get worse without consideration and then a change. The right view of the world must be believed to be more important than what seems to be gained from the pagan worldview that I’ve described.
Applying Holiness part one
If they took a test or quiz on the attributes of God, evangelicals and fundamentalists would list holiness and get that one right. They know God is holy. They know the word “holy.” But they either don’t understand holiness or they have purposefully twisted it to conform to their churches and lives. I want to explain.
The Pharisees to the Left: Little Faith, Weak Minds, Poor Arguments, But With a Loud Fanfare
OK. I’m going to postpone what I was going to post until at least Wednesday. This subject has captured my attention.
In Mark 7:13, Jesus said:
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
This could be a bumper sticker for what I’ll call “the Pharisees of the left.” The Pharisees didn’t just add to the Word of God—they also subtracted from God’s Word. They wished to make “the word of God of none effect,” the parts they don’t like obeying. They did that by leaving out mercy and judgment and faith for tithing on little herbs (Matthew 23:23). They did that with “corban” so that they could abstain from supporting their parents (Mark 7:7-12). They also attempt to reduce God’s laws to a smaller number by ranking doctrines (Mark 12:28). They did all this to make salvation and sanctification easier, more convenient, and more comfortable on their own. It is something that you saw the Jesuit monks practice in the medieval period, called casuistry. It is a form of left-wing legalism. All of what I’m describing is the bread and butter of liberalism, and now evangelicalism and even much of fundamentalism.
Know this about the left I’m describing. They have very loud fanfare, but don’t let that confuse you. Their loud fanfare is the cover for their little faith, weak minds, and poor arguments. They are the strawman in the Wizard of Oz. They have the diploma, which is the major and perhaps only evidence for their brains. They are good on fanfare, what is really sounding brass. It makes a loud noise, but is worthless. What they are doing is giving away the faith and sabotaging biblical Christianity for their own convenience, just like the Pharisees were doing with the Old Testament and Jeroboam did with worship in Jerusalem. Their organizations and institutions and “success” have become far more important than the truth itself.
I want to concentrate on new evangelicalism or evangelicalism and fundamentalism, because that’s where the greatest danger is.
The Pharisees were into their props and instruments of self promotion. This was their loud fanfare. They would throw the ashes on their face, wear the phylacteries, put on sad faces, and bruise themselves to make an impression that they were serious for God. It was so much a show. With today’s left, it goes a different direction. They embrace a populism with an emphasis on creature comfort, so the left show a faux identification with these. They make an impression in fitting with an Oprah generation. Instead of the trappings of first century Judaism, they target a different kind of worldliness.
Let me describe. Come as you are. Leadership photo with everyone dressed down. New emphasis on social causes—the soup lines of the Hollywood elite. In certain cases, the moussed up hair, soul patch, and brand names that imitate poverty. Today’s noble savage. Gritty urban or graffiti font on the brochure. Earnest, whispery, throaty tones in the voice, much like today’s soul singers, Alicia Keys or even Justin Bieber (though they wouldn’t want to admit the latter). And then everybody is your pal, like Woody in Toy Story, a friend indeed. All of this is strategic, the modern fanfare parallel to the Pharisees with their first century Jewish crowd. But that’s not all.
For centuries, Christians believed and obeyed the Scripture, especially in practical matters, a particular way. As the culture has changed, new evangelicalism or evangelicalism and now fundamentalism has changed to conform to the zeitgeist. This is where they use the Pharisaical tactics to make the Word of God of none effect. To protect their numbers, their payroll, and other infrastructure for the movement, they give up on distinctions in dress between men and women, modesty, reverent worship music, roles of men and women, cessationism, and more. They use the same type of reasoning that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day did with corban in order to dispose of thousands of years of practice.
In order then to protect what they’ve got going, the evangelicals and fundamentalists use the same type of tactics that the Pharisees did. They said Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub. They’ve got no proof, but if you keep saying it enough times, a lot of people will believe it. Their professed evidence that Jesus was with Satan was that Jesus hung out with the obvious friends of Satan, so there you go. The evangelicals and fundamentalists will call you Amish, say you’re irrelevant, have a remnant mentality, you’re myopic, you’re judgmental, etc., either psychobabble or red herrings.
What’s ironic to me with the evangelicals and fundamentalists is their similarities with the Jack Hyles movement, which was all about bells and whistles. Both major on programs and demographics and incentives and youth culture and business practices. The former would never want to be associated with the latter, but both use a similar template for church growth.
The evangelicals and the fundamentalists also both have their scribes that are the academic or legal wing of their movement. For the evangelicals, it is the Evangelical Theological Society and their graduate schools, and for fundamentalists, it is the colleges and seminaries. Christians since Christ believed in the preservation of Scripture. This is the historic position. With that also came certainty and authority. The faux authority of the evangelicals and fundamentalists is their degrees and papers and self-endorsement and accreditation. This parallels with the difference between Jesus and the scribes. Jesus spoke with authority, because His was the Word of God. The scribes quoted each other. Why is it true? Because Rabbi So-and-So says so. Well, why is he right? Of course, because Rabbi This-and-That also said he was right. And plus it has worked! And who do you have who agrees with you? You’re irrelevant!
Have the above societies of sacredotalism increased faith? No. Instead of faith in Scripture, it becomes faith in scholarship. We were once sure we had all the Words. Now we’re not sure. We were once sure what Scripture meant. Now we’re not sure. We were once sure how the Bible applied. Now we’re not sure. But we’re smarter! We’ve got the Dan Wallace and James White position to combat the Bart Ehrman position. Both sides are unsure, but it’s a degree of uncertainty. And because of scholarship, we’re told that’s how it’s got to be. With that as your foundation, it’s simple to see why pragmatism becomes the actual rule for the day.
There is far less holiness. Children are disobeying their parents. People are more into material things. We’ve got the Bible, but everything is reduced to a syllogism. This is what evangelicalism and fundamentalism has given us.
Ahhh! But you’ve got an argument! What about the expositors! There is far more exposition today! I am thankful for exposition, but exposition has become a medium for allowing worldliness and sin. Exposition has become the end all. I expose the Bible. I preach through books, but you’ve got to deal with what it says. The teaching is not a replacement for obedience. Like the Corinthians, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are puffed up with knowledge. The Corinthians knew that meat wasn’t an idol and that knowledge puffed them up (1 Cor 8:1). They use their “teaching” time to explain away centuries of biblical practices. The Pharisees taught Scripture. They used the Bible. But then they made the Word of God of none effect with what was little more than excuses. That’s what evangelicalism and fundamentalism has gotten us. The type of exposition that centers on interpretation results in a form of godliness, excused by the ability to parse and conjugate. The exposition falls short of exposing the lives of the hearers.
The Pharisees of the left require their liberty. They’re better than you because they have a lower standard but you can reach up to their exalted status if you would do the same. The most godly are less sure and more uncertain. Uncertainty is humility is authenticity.
Pastors and their churches have no need for evangelicalism or fundamentalism. You shouldn’t be cowered by or influenced by them. They are one of those ghost cities that majors on infrastructure. Behind the doors, you won’t find much. Don’t be intimidated by their loud fanfare.
You Are What You Allow
Sandwiched in Judah between Uzziah and Ahaz is Jotham, tucked away for 16 years in 2 Kings 15:32-38 and 2 Chronicles 27. 2 Kings 15:34 says “he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD.” He did right. Case closed, right? No. Doing right isn’t all there is to it, that is, when you are the leader.
Judah received 1 and 2 Kings as a sermon in her Babylonian captivity, explaining how it was she got there. 1 and 2 Chronicles gave hope to post-exilic Israel for her future. So you are in exile in Babylon, reading the trajectory toward defeat and humiliation. What part does Jotham play? He did what was right. So he did not at all advance the slide toward ejection from the land of blessing? You read his part and you understand his role in your unfavorable circumstances. It wasn’t what Jotham did, but what he allowed.
Jotham did right. Jotham defeated the Ammonites. Jotham rebuilt the temple gate. Jotham built fortresses of defense against Judah’s enemies. He did that which was right in the sight of the LORD. It wasn’t what Jotham did. It was what he allowed. When you are leader, you are responsible for not just what you’ve done, but also what you allow.
What did Jotham allow? He allowed worship in the high places. He allowed the people of Judah to do corruptly. What he allowed resulted in the Lord sending Israel and Syria against Judah. Because of what he allowed, he produced an Ahaz, a son who witnessed this compromise and who didn’t do that which was right in the sight of the Lord.
In Isaiah 6:1, King Uzziah died, Jehovah sent Isaiah to a hard hearted people, who wouldn’t listen to God’s man. Jotham allowed this. So Isaiah 7 starts with Ahaz and God’s warning to him through Isaiah.
The point is, you are what you allow. You aren’t just what you do. If you allowed it, you as much as did it. Allowing it doesn’t mean that you can stop everything from happening, but it does mean that you will go about making sure it doesn’t happen again. You certainly won’t disapprove of it by inviting it to be with you.
You can write a book against the Charismatics, but when you honor the continuationists by inviting them in to preach for you, you are what you allow. You can decry the horrible results of amillennialism, and say that the Bible is perspicuous in how everything will end, but when you honor the amillennialists by having them preach for you, you are what you allow. You can preach against the rock-star pastors and the rock concert “events” they produce, but when you allow one of your own, you are what you allow. You can write against the reckless, young pastors with their sex messages and hyper-emphasis on relevance, but when the men you honor invite them and honor them in public, and you say nothing about the men who honor them and do nothing about that, you are what you allow. You can say you are for modest dress, but if you allow immodest dress in your church, you are what you allow.
I think that some of the conservative evangelical pastors and preachers, well-known ones, do right. I’m talking about somebody like John MacArthur and all those in his orbit. They have much righteous conduct themselves and even preach many, many right and good things. That’s not the problem. Their issue is the same one Jotham had. What they allow is who they are.
The captives in Babylon read about Jotham and they knew. There is a unique responsibility for the one who does right but allows wrong. You are what you allow. And what Jotham allowed was an important reason why Judah was marched out of the land in 586BC.
Spirit Baptism—the Historic Baptist View, part 17; the Alleged Reference in 1 Corinthians 12:13, part 8
we be bond or free”:
in water, since, as demonstrated earlier, Spirit baptism had ceased by the time
the first epistle to the Corinthians was inspired. Furthermore, a reference to Spirit baptism in 1 Corinthians
12:13 would be unique in the Pauline corpus—all other references to the baptism
of the Holy Ghost are in the gospels or in Acts.[i] Indeed, throughout the entirety of
Scripture, whenever baptism is spoken of without a contextual qualifier (“with
the Holy Ghost” “with fire” “unto Moses,” etc.) immersion in water is universally
the referent. No contextual
qualifier is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Thus, the verse does not constitute a unique reference to
Spirit baptism contrary to the uniform Pauline usage elsewhere in his epistles,
but a simple reference to baptism in water, like all other unqualified
references to baptism in the Bible.
Such general considerations from Scripture establish that 1 Corinthians
12:13 speaks of immersion in water, not Spirit baptism.
reference to immersion in water.
As discussed earlier, Christ is the agent of Spirit baptism—the second,
not the third Person of the Trinity performs this baptism (Matthew 3:11, etc.). Were 1 Corinthians 12:13 a reference to
Spirit baptism, it would contradict all the clear passages on the doctrine by
making the Holy Ghost the baptizer.
Recognizing in the text a reference to the working of the Spirit in
leading the members of the Corinthian church to be baptized in water harmonizes
perfectly with the rest of the Bible.
working of the Holy Spirit in leading the members of the Corinthian church to
receive water baptism fits the context of 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote his epistle to a church
filled with “contentions” (1 Corinthians 1:11), where factions had formed
claiming to follow Paul, Apollos, and others (1:12). The apostle exhorts the church to unity based on their
uniform immersion in the name of the Trinity—they were not baptized in the name
of Paul or any other affirmed head of a church faction (1:13ff.), but had all
pledged themselves to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the baptismal
bath. Likewise in 1 Corinthians
12:13, all the members of the Corinthian church, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond
or free, had received a common water baptism into the body of Christ, the local
congregation (12:27), and thus unity was incumbent upon them. Having been added to the body by an
identical immersion in water (12:13), each member of the church was a body part
which needed the others for the congregation to function properly
(12:14-27). The Corinthians
exulted in the various pneumatic gifts, often improperly manifested among them
(1 Corinthians 12-14), but they were to be unified, as they had all been led by
the one Holy Spirit (12:13a) to submit to immersion into a common church
body. The assembly was to
recognize and prize the unity derived from the identical, Spirit-led immersion
in water participated in by all its members. Finally, the reference to the other church ordinance, the
Lord’s Supper, in 12:13d, supports a reference to water baptism in 12:13a. The context of 1 Corinthians 12:13
clearly supports a reference to baptism in water in the verse, rather than to
Spirit baptism.
ordinance adds one to the membership of the congregation authorizing the
immersion. This truth is also
manifest in Acts 2:41, 47. Those
that “gladly received [Peter’s gospel preaching of the] word were baptized: and
the same day there were added [to the pre-Pentecost church membership of around
120, Acts 1:15] about three thousand souls.” These three thousand were “added to the church” (v.
47). The verb “add,” prostithemi,
is not just a word for joining a church’s membership in Acts 2:41, 47, but is
also employed in this way in Acts 5:14; 11:24[ii]
(cf. Isaiah 14:1, Zechariah 14:17, LXX).[iii] Thus, 1 Corinthians 12:13 affirms that,
led by the Holy Spirit, the members of the Corinthian church had been immersed
in water and by that means had been added to the membership of the
congregational body in that city.
have been all made to drink into one Spirit”
been contentious and factious over the issue of baptism (1 Corinthians 1), so
they had been practicing the Lord’s Supper improperly (1 Corinthians 11). As Paul had exhorted the congregation
to Spirit-led unity around their common immersion in the first half 12:13, so
he reminds them that they had all participated in the Lord’s Supper, had “been
all made to drink,” with reference to the same unifying Holy Spirit. The verb make drink is used for literal drinking in Scripture.[iv] The use of the passive voice for the
verb is parallel to the passive voice for were baptized—indeed, the clauses discussing the two church
ordinances manifest strong parallelism,[v]
a strong argument that the phrase refers to the church ordinance that
complements believer’s immersion, the Supper,[vi]
the celebration of communion with reference to (eis) the one Holy Spirit. The topical and linguistic connection of 1 Corinthians
12:12-13 to the discussion of communion in 10:16-17, as explained earlier,
further supports this interpretation.
While a reference to the Lord’s Supper is natural when compared to the
first half of the verse, and the perspicuity of Scripture supports the fact
that one can indeed determine the significance of the text, the question of why
the Supper would be referred to as “drinking” rather than “eating” (cf. 1 Corinthians
11:20), along with the use of potidzo as “make drink” rather than the verb drink elsewhere used for the Supper, pino, makes a view that the clause refers more generally
to common blessings received from the Spirit, including the Lord’s Supper but
not exclusively referring to it, understandable. However, both of these
arguments for a wider reference to spiritual blessing, rather than a restricted
one to the Supper, can be effectively answered.[vii] While the verb potidzo is not used elsewhere of the Supper in Scripture,
the related noun poterion is
regularly employed in the New Testament in connection with communion (Matthew
26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 21; 11:25-28), and the noun
is exclusively used—in eight references, all of which are in the two chapters
immediately preceding 1 Corinthians 12—with reference to the Supper in 1
Corinthians. Furthermore, the
specific sense of potidzo as made
to drink, in contrast to the simple idea of
drink with pino, emphasizes the work of the unifying Spirit in
bringing the Corinthians to both immersion and the Supper. The connection of 12:13 with 10:16-17,
with its mention of the Supper first as drinking, explains the reference in
12:13 to the ordinance as a common drink rather than a common
eating—contextually, greater clarity is achieved through the representation of
the Supper in this manner.[viii] Furthermore, one wonders, since
drinking is not clearly a metaphor anywhere in the Bible for general
Spirit-produced spiritual blessings, what could possibly be drunk in 1
Corinthians 12:13 other than the fruit of the vine from the church ordinance
that complements the baptism spoken of in parallel syntax in the first half of
the verse. Contextual and lexical
considerations demonstrate that the final clause of 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers
to participation in the Lord’s Supper.
A Summary of the Conclusion of the Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 12:13
ordinances of baptism and communion, which were intended as sources of unity,
had been distorted and were associated with divisiveness and strife within the
Corinthian congregation (1
Corinthians 1:11-17; 11:20-22).
The Corinthian strife was further worsened by the misuse of spiritual
gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14). In 1
Corinthians 12:13, Paul reminded the church that God had given them a common
baptism and Lord’s Table, and called them to the unity the Lord intended for
their congregation as the body of Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul told the Corinthians, in paraphrase,
“Spiritual gifts are for unity in the congregation, the body of Christ—the
Spirit who gave these gifts to your church also worked in you to receive a
common immersion, and to partake in a common Lord’s Supper—so be unified!”
That is,
no verse in Paul’s epistles employs the word baptism in connection with the work of the Spirit in Acts 2,
8, 10, and 19. Titus 3:6 does
allude back to this action in the historia salutis. A discussion of verses in other parts of the New Testament
sometimes alleged to be references to Spirit baptism is found in the section “Spirit
Baptism: Other Alleged References in the Epistles: Romans 6:3-4; Galatians
3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21” below. Concerning these latter texts, “It is sometimes argued that
certain passages that refer to baptism, without any further qualification, also
teach about Spirit-baptism (e. g., Romans 6:4; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12;
1 Peter 3:21). This interpretation is usually designed to protect these texts
against a view that takes them to teach baptismal regeneration. But, in fact,
the early church consistently used ‘baptism’ without any qualifiers to refer to
water-baptism. None of these passages, even when taken to refer to immersion in
water, implies baptismal regeneration” (pg. 50, “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,”
Craig Blomberg, in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1996).
Note that
these verses cannot refer to becoming “in Christ” at the moment of
conversion. Those who had already become believers were subsequently “added to the
Lord” by means of baptism into His body, the local, visible congregation.
Isaiah
14:1, kai«
e˙leh/sei ku/rioß ton Iakwb kai« e˙kle÷xetai e¶ti ton Israhl kai«
aÓnapau/sontai e˙pi« thvß ghvß aujtw◊n kai« oJ giw¿raß prosteqh/setai proß
aujtouß kai« prosteqh/setai proß ton oi•kon Iakwb, “And the Lord will have mercy on Jacob,
and will yet choose Israel, and they shall rest on their land: and the stranger
shall be added to them, yea, shall be added to the house of
Jacob.” Zechariah 14:17, kai« e¶stai o¢soi e˙a»n mh aÓnabw◊sin e˙k pasw◊n tw◊n fulw◊n thvß
ghvß ei˙ß Ierousalhm touv proskunhvsai tw◊ˆ basilei√ kuri÷wˆ pantokra¿tori kai«
ou∞toi e˙kei÷noiß prosteqh/sontai, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever of all the families of the
earth shall not come up to Jerusalem to worship the king, the Lord Almighty,
even these shall be added to the others.”
The
fifteen New Testament references are Matthew 10:42; 25:35, 37, 42; 27:48; Mark
9:41; 15:36; Luke 13:15; Romans 12:20; 1 Corinthians 3:2, 6-8; 12:13;
Revelation 14:8.
e˙bapti÷sqhmen
ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen
verbs e˙bapti÷sqhmen and e˙poti÷sqhmen as references in the text to baptism and the Supper
(contra, e. g., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelien (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1990), which argues in its note on 1 Corinthians 12:13 that present
tense verbs would be expected if baptism and the Supper were under
consideration). Each member of the
church at Corinth had only been baptized once, so the use of tenses common for
durative action, such as the present or the imperfect, would not well fit the
verse. The parallelism between the
two ordinances makes the use of the same tense for both verbs expected, so a
requisite requirement of an aorist e˙bapti÷sqhmen would lead one to expect the aorist for e˙poti÷sqhmen.
Furthermore, the summary nature of the presentation of 1 Corinthians
12:13 expects aorist tense verbs.
The emphasis is not upon the repetition (or lack thereof) of the acts of
baptism and communion, but upon the simple fact that the members of the church
shared in unifying fellowship around these ordinances derived from the Holy
Spirit.
The
variant reading po/ma e˙poti/sqhmen, making the phrase
“we have been all made to drink into one drink,” found in around 15% of the MSS
of 1 Corinthians 12:13 (while the TR reading has 85% of MSS, including those
preferred by the CT, such as a and B), although certainly not original, indicates
that scribes copying 1 Corinthians 12:13 thought its latter portion referred to
the Lord’s Supper.
The more
common verb pi÷nw appears 75 times in the NT and is simply “to drink”
in contrast to poti÷zw, which appears 15
times and is “to cause/give to drink.”
The “give to drink,” rather than a simple “drink” sense for poti÷zw is very clear in Matthew 25:35, 42. Pi÷nw is
used elsewhere for the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:67; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:18),
including six references in 1 Corinthians (11:25-29), while no other poti÷zw reference specifically refers to communion. This is a formidable argument against a
reference to the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 12:13. However, there are considerable
counterarguments to this linguistic challenge.
poth/rion is used in connection with the Supper—indeed, it is
used exclusively in connection with the Supper in 1 Corinthians, where it
appears eight times.
voice 71 times, and in the middle 4 times (Matthew 20:23; Mark 10:39; Luke
17:8; Revelation 14:10), and the middle possesses a genuine middle sense, not a
passive one (while some might argue that some or all of the middle references
are deponent, that would, in any case, make the sense equivalent to the active,
not to the passive). The NT middle
voice references are also universally in the future tense. One notices a similar extreme paucity
of passive pi÷nw forms in the LXX—the verb appears there in the active
206 times, 61 times in the middle (all future again and at least some
deponent), and only 3 times in the passive voice (Leviticus 11:34; Sirach
31:28, 29), in each case a present passive. The apostolic patristic writers employed pi÷nw 7 times in the active, once in the (future) middle,
and never in the passive. Various
works of the Apologists Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of
Antioch (as found in the respective modules for Accordance Bible software; so for all the studies in this endnote; it
should be noted that the classifications in Accordance have been accepted, so that middle/passive forms
recorded as middles or as passives have here been reckoned as such) contain 13
uses pi÷nw of in the active, 4 uses in the middle, and no uses
in the passive. Various Apocryphal
Gospel texts (as found in Accordance)
employ the verb in the active 9 times, and never in the middle or passive. Josephus employs pi÷nw in the active voice 37 times, never in the middle,
and only once in the passive, a present infinitive. Philo employs the verb 49 times in the active voice, 6 times
in the middle (always a future middle), and only once in the passive (an aorist
passive participle). The
pseudepigrapha employ pi÷nw 45 times in the
active, 15 times in the middle, and never in the passive. Thus, the passive voice of pi÷nw is absent from the inspired Greek text and extremely
rare in related Koiné Greek
literature, while the aorist passive, as employed for poti÷zw in 1 Corinthians 12:13, is not found in any range of
literature examined outside of a single participial text in Philo. No aorist passive indicatives were
found in any text. Thus, one could
conclude that the constraints of the Koiné usage impelled Paul to employ poti÷zw
to express the aorist passive idea he wished, such a tense and voice for pi÷nw not being a live option.
is in the passive voice only in 1 Corinthians 12:13 in the New Testament, the
other 14 references possessing the active voice, the verb is found in the
passive twice, in the present and future tenses, in the LXX (Genesis 13:10;
Ezekiel 32:6), along with 63 active voice uses. In the apostolic patristic writers, two active voice forms,
4 middle, and one passive, an aorist, (Shepherd 68:9) are found. The Apologists examined above employ poti÷zw in the active 7 times, the middle once,
and do not employ the passive.
Josephus does not employ the verb at all. Philo has it in the active 33 times, the middle 7 times, and
the passive twice, both aorists (Alleg 2:86; Post (Cain) 151). The pseudepigrapha have the word in the
active 6 times and the passive (an aorist) once (Abraham 19:16).
toward the idea that the passive voice of poti÷zw was much more in live play than the passive of pi÷nw in the Koiné milieu. Thus, it appears possible that poti÷zw would have been the verb of choice for
Paul when he wanted to express a passive concept, and especially an aorist
passive idea.
consideration lies in the parallel with the aorist passive e˙bapti÷sqhmen.
As passivity, not active agency, is expressed in the verb for the church
ordinance of baptism, so it is reasonable to see Paul maintain parallel
passive, rather than active agency in the reference to the second church
ordinance. As the Corinthians, led
by the Holy Spirit, “were baptized,” so they “were given to drink” of the cup
in the Supper. An active voice
reference to the church members drinking would violate the parallelism, and
once one was shut up to the passive voice, the sense of “were made to drink”
expressed by poti÷zw would be
more natural than a use of pi÷nw as
simply “drink.” Furthermore, as
discussed in the text, since He who “made [the Corinthians] to drink” in the
Supper was that same Spirit who led them to the waters of baptism, the use of poti÷zw to emphasize the unifying Spirit’s active
work in the Supper provided Paul another argument to exhort the church, divided
as it was specifically over the practice of the Supper (11:17-34) while it
boasted in its pneumatic gifts, to unity.
of the objection to viewing the second half of 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a
references to something other than the Supper from the use of pi÷nw, rather than poti÷zw, in the passage.
Note also
the repeated (though not exclusive; cf. 9:7, 13; 11:24-34) connection in the
previous context of the verb to eat
in connection with meat offered to idols (8:7, 8, 10, 13; 10:7, 18, 25, 27, 28,
31). This also could contribute to
Paul’s choice of drinking as the verb of choice to refer to the Supper rather
than eating. Drinking would
contextually more certainly reference the church ordinance, rather than to meat
eaten to glorify false gods.
Jockeying for the Most Spiritually Dead or Most Spiritually Unable Position
When I present the gospel, I tell people that they are dead spiritually (Ephesians 2:1, 5). It’s true. And I also believe that spiritual deadness is spiritual inability (Romans 3:10-12). Men don’t seek after God. Men, who are in the flesh, cannot please God (Romans 8:8). However, those two truths must be understood in light of everything that the Bible teaches. God won’t contradict Himself, because He can’t deny Himself. And it is these two points among others, man’s spiritual deadness and his inability, that Calvinists take past what the Bible says about them, confusing people on the doctrine of salvation.
. . . the inability of man and the sovereign grace of God in salvation. These biblical doctrines are compromised by the assertion that faith precedes regeneration.
He continues to write in contradiction to faith preceding regeneration:
Though he is at enmity with God and a slave to sin, and morally and spiritually blind, this view says he is not so dead in sin that he cannot believe in God for salvation. That is, this view says that all men are capable of ordinary initial saving faith, and they do not need to be regenerated to exercise it.
I’ve followed the teaching of John MacArthur since I listened to him on radio in the early 1980s while I was in college, but it was only recently that he began saying the same thing as Piper and others about regeneration. In this message in 2005, he spends almost the entire sermon attempting to prove that regeneration precedes faith. Before that, in 1997 when his study Bible came out, he clearly writes in his doctrinal statement that faith precedes regeneration. Something changed between 1997 and 2005 on that subject of which I had not heard.
The above idea is that man is so, so bad that he can’t believe without being first regenerated. I gladly agree that man is very bad, but not so bad that he cannot believe without God’s arbitrary, predetermined regeneration of a relative few out of the pool of all mankind. Man is so low that he can be said to have any involvement in his regeneration, which explains salvation testimonies with no perceivable conversion experience. Do these guys really believe this? They say they do, but it’s a doctrine so inconceivable, that some of them who hold it are found slipping out with what the Bible actually teaches, as is the following case with R. C. Sproul, well-known Calvinist (The Holiness of God, 1993 edition, p. 144):
Once Luther grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans, he was reborn.
Oops! Wow. How did Luther grasp the teaching of Paul before he was reborn? Oh well.
So much of Scripture reads differently than “regeneration precedes faith.” It isn’t because they haven’t been reborn that they don’t receive Christ, but because of hard, thorny, or stony hearts. A particular kind of heart wouldn’t be an issue to a regeneration that will produce saving faith no matter what the circumstances. It isn’t because they haven’t been reborn, but because when they “knew God”—how did they know Him if they were dead?—they didn’t glorify Him as God (Rom 1:18-25). “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Receive Him (believe on His name) and then become sons of God. They’ve got to have some discombobulated explanation to undo that plain meaning. If ability to respond is at zero until regeneration and then it is inevitable, why would sowing and watering (1 Cor 3) relate at all to God giving the increase? If nothing precedes man being born spiritually, then how is he begotten by the Word of Truth (James 1:18)? He would have to hear the Word of God before he was begotten and therefore hearing would precede new birth. Why would anyone already regenerated spend any time counting the cost before coming to Christ? There are so many contradictions like these, if man is so bad that only regeneration would allow him to believe.
I would be fine if Calvinists would just think man was bad enough that they ceased using his carnal musical styles as worship to God or stopped wearing his immodest and worldly apparel. I think it would be very good if these Calvinists would quit using fleshly techniques to lure in visitors, instead of depending upon the sovereignty of God. I would be better persuaded by these Calvinists of their low view of man if they applied the same truths to their own contextualization of the gospel. Those would help convince me that they really do believe how bad men actually are.
The Priority of What the Bible Doesn’t Say
The Christian life is about being and doing what the God in the Bible says to be and do. However, along the way, evangelicalism and fundamentalism has made it into what God doesn’t say in the Bible to be and do. Those are often called liberties. The idea is that if the Bible doesn’t say anything about it, then it is permissible. It is then neither wrong nor right. And so a lot of the agenda of churches ends up being other than what the Bible teaches either in proposition or by example.
The Bible is a relatively long book. It’s got a lot in it. It has in it plenty to do. You could keep busy doing just what’s in it. Jesus said we are sanctified by the truth and His Word is the truth (John 17:17). We can conclude that we are not sanctified by what isn’t in the Bible. We can do things not in the Bible and those things will not sanctify us. The point isn’t to find out what isn’t in the Bible and then to do that. The goal should be to sort out what’s in the Bible and do that. We don’t have the liberty not to do what the Bible says. And when we are not doing what it says, then we are not doing what it says. We might not be doing something that it says not to do, and that’s good, but that doesn’t mean that not doing what it says is good. We are supposed to do what it says.
Ultimately, the reason churches have decided not to do what the Bible says is because the world doesn’t like what the Bible says and churches know that. Because the world doesn’t like it, what the Bible says also doesn’t “work.” The gospel of the Bible doesn’t “work.” The practice of the Bible doesn’t “work.” Because the Bible doesn’t “work,” what becomes practical for churches is what the Bible doesn’t say. When the things not in the Bible do work it validates them to their users and advocates as somehow practical and therefore spiritual. God is “using them.” And the more they work, the more people use them.
Depending on what isn’t in the Bible is not living by faith. We live by faith when we follow what the Bible says. And faith is what pleases God.
So many of the methods and institutions used by churches are not in the Bible. These non-scriptural methods have become the evangelical and fundamentalist tradition. The traditions of evangelicalism and fundamentalism have become bigger than the Bible.
The main argument I have heard, besides that these traditions and non-scriptural methods and institutions “work,” is something like, “well, we use computers and typewriters and those aren’t in the Bible.” The syllogism for this argument would read as the following: Computers and typewriters aren’t in the Bible and we use them, computers and typewriters aren’t wrong, therefore, all the things that we want to use that aren’t in the Bible are also not wrong. I expect that one attack on this post will be that it is written on the internet, which isn’t in the Bible.
Scripture does not say that it is wrong to play baseball for 15 hours a day. The Bible does not say that it is wrong to eat a gallon of ice cream every day. God’s Word does not say that it is wrong to watch documentaries all day from morning until night. If the Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong, then it must be right.
God didn’t say Cain couldn’t bring fruits and vegetables, but when he did, God disrespected his offering. God didn’t say that Israel couldn’t worship God in Dan and Bethel or in the high places, so they did. We find out that God didn’t like it. God wants what He said, not what He didn’t say.
The churches that use these non-biblical methods are rewarded with congratulations and promotion from evangelicalism and fundamentalism. The people that use them write books about what they’ve done and people read and then emulate the books. Entire conferences are dedicated to the methods. The non-biblical institutions are attended and supported. There is a priority of what the Bible doesn’t say.
And so we’ve got billions of dollars and decades of time spent on that which is not in the Bible. This is where we’ve got into trouble in Christianity. In the end, what is saddest is that God is not glorified through them. Men have been glorified and they have been glad to receive that glory and men have been glad to give that glory to them.
Schemes That Avoid Consequences Scripture Guarantees for True Followers of the Lord
Fundamentally, I believe a people has a right to govern itself and that other peoples must exercise patience even when cruelties and injustices are done. Give men a chance to try their schemes.
“Give men a chance to try their schemes.” How does that sound in hindsight? Not so good, I would hope.
Should men be given a chance to try their schemes? It was bad enough that a U. S. ambassador would think such things, let alone the schemes men excuse for churches in the name of church growth.
Biblical Christianity is synonymous with being hated and persecuted, revealed in the following verses of Scripture:
Matthew 5:10-12: 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Luke 6:21-23: 21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. 23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
Matthew 10:21-22: 21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Luke 21:16-17: 16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.
John 15:18-19: 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
2 Timothy 3:12: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
1 Corinthians 1:18: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.
You don’t need explanation to understand what the above verses mean. Christianity isn’t getting along with the world. It will clash with the world. And yet the flesh wants to avoid that treatment. As constituted according to the truth, the world doesn’t want to be in the church. A biblical church isn’t going to be popular with the world and its members will be hated. That’s how Scripture presents the situation.
The Bible warns believers of the consequences of real Christianity, so that they will be prepared for it. They can buck up and persevere. It gives Christians a basis for transcending their circumstances and making it through. Their reward is great in heaven and they know they are joining the ranks of believers who came before them.
Instead of accepting the conditions God has guaranteed, much of modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism simply attempts to change the conditions with its schemes. Instead of focusing on being obedient to the Bible and regulating church worship and living according to the Word of God, evangelicals and fundamentalists try to tamp down the very reactions that God orders them to prepare to endure. What are those schemes concocted and choreographed by evangelicals and fundamentalists that avoid consequences Scripture guarantees for true followers of the Lord? What are the schemes perpetrated for missing some or most of the hatred from the world? There are many today and I want to address them here. They have changed Christianity into something different than the Bible reveals.
- Invite to Church Instead of Go and Preach
- Leave out Repentance or the Lordship of Christ when Preaching
- Attract the Lost to the Church with the Things Unbelievers Like
- Alter Your Services to Remove Certain Offenses to the Unsaved
- Attempt to Relate with the World On Its Terms in Marketing the Church
- Target Demographics with Appropriate Inducements
- Fashion Special Events that Will Seduce, Captivate, or Lure Unsaved People
- Use Almost Any Bible Version You Want
- Craft Sermons with Certain Entertainment Value
- Start Programs with Which Unbelievers Will Relate
- Tone Down Certain Biblical Doctrines and Issues at Odds with the World
- Use the Building as an Attraction
- Use Holidays as a Solicitation
- Give the Impression of Comfort and Convenience
- Employ Prayer as a Means of Appeal
- Allow Some Disobedience to Scripture
- Emphasize Unity Over Separation
- Participate in Community Social Causes
- Convey a Lack of Dogmatism
Over the next several weeks and months, I will start dealing with these schemes. When you look at this list, you shouldn’t think you’re fine just because you practice only a few of them. All of them should be considered.
Spirit Baptism, the Historic Baptist View, part 10
alleged reference
the structure of the universal church dispensational (UCD) doctrine of Spirit
baptism is based [i]—deprived
of the verse, it is very difficult to even attempt to defend it
exegetically. The verse reads, “For
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into
one Spirit.”[ii] UCDs argue that “in this dispensation
those who place their faith in Jesus Christ have been baptized into the body of
Christ, both Jew and Gentile, and are now seen as one in the body of Christ (1
Cor. 12:12–13). . . . According to 1 Corinthians 12:13, it is the Spirit who
baptizes Jew and Gentile into one body.”[iii] “Every believer is baptized by the
Spirit . . . The Spirit forms the church . . . by baptizing all believers into
the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12, 13).” [iv] However, 1 Corinthians 12:13 teaches
nothing of the kind. In the verse,
Paul teaches that the members of the church at Corinth, led by the Holy Spirit,
were all baptized in water to join the membership of that local assembly—the
particular congregation, not a non-extant universal church, being the body of
Christ—and that all the members of that assembly partook of the common blessing
of the Lord’s Supper. The
theological division between UCDs and historic Baptists on the significance of
1 Corinthians 12:13 may be resolved into the following questions: a.) Is the body of Christ the visible
congregation or a universal, invisible church? b.) Does Christ baptize with the
Spirit, or does the Holy Spirit baptize? c.) Was Spirit baptism a completed
historical phenomenon at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, or is it a event that
takes place regularly throughout the entire dispensation of grace? The following few posts will deal with
these questions.
Is the body of Christ the visible congregation or a universal, invisible
church?
12:13, is the particular, local assembly.
It is not a universal and invisible church because no such entity is
found in the New Testament. While
a discussion of the many proofs of the unscriptural nature of the universal
church dogma would go beyond the boundaries of the present composition,[v]
and, besides, this blog has elsewhere carefully refuted the universl church
position, it will briefly be noted that the word translated church, ekklesia, never is used for
a universal, invisible entity in any of its 115 appearances in the New
Testament.[vi] The LXX, in accord with the
significance of the word in classical Greek, likewise employs ekklesia of local, visible assemblies, not of anything
unassembled[vii]
and invisible.[viii] While the family of God is a universal, invisible entity that consists of
all believers everywhere (Galatians 3:26), a church is a particular, local, visible congregation. The major metaphors for the church also
demonstrate that the idea of a universal, invisible church is false. The church is Christ’s body (1
Corinthians 12:27), His temple (1 Timothy 3:15), and His bride (2 Corinthians
11:2).[ix] Bodies are very local and visible—a
bunch of flesh and bones scattered around the globe is not a body. A temple is
in one particular location, available for everyone to see; bricks scattered all over the place are
not a building at all. And certainly
every man on his wedding day rejoices that his bride is very local and visible,
not invisible or cut into little pieces which are scattered all over the
earth! Christ’s church is not a
building, a denomination, or something universal and invisible; it is a particular assembly of baptized
saints.
Corinthians 12:13 demonstrates that the body metaphor refers to the particular
congregation. 1 Corinthians 12:27,
the only verse in the New Testament that defines the body of Christ, addresses
the particular congregation at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) and states, “Now ye
are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” The Pauline exhortation to unity in 1 Corinthians makes it
evident that the apostle employed the body metaphor to emphasize the need for
real oneness among the brethren in the city of Corinth. His purpose was not to teach some sort
of theoretical church-unity between believers at Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, and
everywhere else. In 12:14-27, Paul
tells the members of the Corinthian congregation that each of them is required
for the smooth function of the assembly—one is like an eye, the other like a
hand, another like a nose, and their united functionality underneath the
direction of Christ the Head (Ephesians 1:22-23) is necessary for their
congregational “body” to work effectively, just as united functionality of
literal body parts is necessary for a healthy human body. The local sense of “body” in v. 14-27
is directly tied to the statement of v. 13 by the explanatory word “for” and
requires a local sense of the body metaphor in 12:13. Furthermore, universalizing the Pauline image to make
members of the congregation at Corinth into parts of a body cut up into pieces
all over the world would not only violate the necessarily localized nature of a
living body but do nothing to advance Paul’s purpose of promoting Corinthian
unity—rather, a universal body would have further contributed to Corinthian
division, as today the Protestant universal church doctrine, when adopted by
Baptist churches, contributes to a neglect of, disrespect for, and a failure to
adequately strive for genuine, Scriptural unity within particular
assemblies. 1 Corinthians 12:13
cannot refer to the Spirit placing someone into the universal, invisible church
as the body of Christ, because the body of Christ is the local, visible
assembly in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 and in the rest of the New
Testament.
there should be no schism in the body (cf. Ephesians 4:3-4). If all believers are the body of
Christ, and unity is commanded in the body, then it would be a sin for a
Bible-believing Baptist to separate from any believer whatsoever, whether he is
part of the church of Rome, one committing the grossest forms of sexual
immorality, or a terribly compromised neo-evangelical, for such separation
would be sowing discord in the body of Christ. Ecclesiastical separation from any believer would be
sin. However, such a conclusion
directly contradicts the Biblical imperative to separate from disobedient
brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14), and the example within 1 Corinthians itself
of separation from an errant believer (5:1-5). The UCD position cannot consistently apply the Biblical
standard of unity to its universal “church” and practice the Biblical doctrine
of separation.[x] Indeed, an examination of the nature of
the genuine unity in orthodoxy and orthopraxy commanded within the assembly
(Ephesians 4:3-16) demonstrates that the tremendous discord of doctrine and
practice within the alleged universal “church” has very little to do with the
Bible. Since the body of Christ is
the visible and local assembly, the conflict inherent in the UCD view is
removed by the historic Baptist doctrine, for an imperative for unity within an
assembly of the Lord’s people is entirely consistent with the removal of a
disobedient or doctrinally errant brother from a congregation by church
discipline.
In the
words of the UCD John F. Walvoord:
“[T]he Scriptures make it plain that every Christian is baptized by the
Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. Salvation and baptism are therefore
coextensive, and it is impossible to be saved without this work of the Holy
Spirit. This is expressly stated in the central passage on the doctrine, ‘For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into
one Spirit’” (pg. 423, “The Person of the Holy Spirit Part 7: The Work of the
Holy Spirit in Salvation.” Bibliotheca Sacra 98:392 (Oct 41) 421-447. Indeed, “1 Corinthians 12:13 . . . [is] [t]he major passage,
which may be taken as the basis of interpretation of the other passages . . .
[namely, the] eleven specific references to spiritual baptism . . . Matthew
3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; Romans 6:1-4; 1
Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12” (pg. 139, The
Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study
of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, John F. Walvoord).
advocate as well, it is only so as an allegedly supportive element of the PCP
position, not as the central verse for the entire theological construction.
kai« ga»r e˙n e˚ni« Pneu/mati hJmei√ß pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n
sw◊ma e˙bapti÷sqhmen, ei¶te ∆Ioudai√oi ei¶te ›Ellhneß, ei¶te douvloi ei¶te
e˙leu/qeroi: kai« pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen.
pgs.
193-194, “Does Progressive Dispensationalism Teach A Posttribulational
Rapture?—Part I,” John Brumett. Conservative Theological Journal, 2:5 (June 1998).
Note on
Acts 2:4, Scofield Reference Bible,
ed. C. I. Scofield. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1945.
Interestingly,
UCD John Walvoord wrote, “The principle cause of disagreement . . . on the
doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit . . . is found in the common failure
to apprehend the distinctive nature of the church” (pg. 138, The Holy
Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of
the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit). The false doctrine of a universal,
invisible church is indeed a tremendous barrier to a recognition of the correct
view of Spirit baptism, the historic Baptist position, and an unsound prop of
the UCD and PCP positions. For
representative refutations of the universal church dogma, see Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll (Emmaus, PA: Challenge Press, n. d.
reprint ed.; also available at
http://thross7.googlepages.com), The Myth of the Universal, Invisible Church
Theory Exploded, Roy Mason (Emmaus, PA:
Challenge Press, 2003), and Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine, Robert Sargent, vol. 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Bible
Baptist Church Publications, 1990), pgs. 481-542. One notes that even non-evangelical scholars such as “James
Dunn[,] [who] needs no introduction, for his prolific scholarship ensures that
he is one of the most well known NT scholars in the world . . . [believes that]
particular and local assemblies are the church of God in Paul, and any idea of
the universal church is absent” (pg. 99, book review of The Theology of Paul
the Apostle, James D. G. Dunn. Grand
Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998, by Thomas R. Schreiner. Trinity Journal 20:1 (Spring 1999)).
The word
appears in Matthew 16:18; 18:17; Acts 2:47; 5:11; 7:38; 8:1,3; 9:31; 11:22, 26;
12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:23, 27; 15:3-4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 19:32, 39, 41; 20:17,
28; Romans 16:1, 4-5, 16, 23; 1Corinthians 1:2; 4:17; 6:4; 7:17; 10:32; 11:16,
18, 22; 12:28; 14:4-5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33-35; 15:9; 16:1, 19; 2 Corinthians
1:1; 8:1, 18-19, 23-24; 11:8, 28; 12:13; Galatians 1:2, 13, 22; Ephesians 1:22;
3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Philippians 3:6; 4:15; Colossians 1:18, 24;
4:15-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 4; 1 Timothy 3:5, 15;
5:16; Philemon 2; Hebrews 2:12; 12:23; James 5:14; 3 John 6, 9-10; Revelation
1:4, 11, 20; 2:1, 7-8, 11-12, 17-18, 23, 29; 3:1, 6-7, 13-14, 22; 22:16. The small minority of uses where an
individual congregation in a particular location is not in view (cf. “Christ is
the head of the church,” Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18) do not prove the
existence of a universal, invisible church any more than “the husband is the
head of the wife” or “the head of the woman is the man” (Ephesians 5:23; 1
Corinthians 11:3; see below) establish that there is a single universal, invisible
husband or a universal, invisible man made up of all individual husbands or men
scattered all over world. Rather,
these verses employ the word church
as a generic noun, as a reference to any or every particular church (or
husband, man, etc.) in the class church (husband, man, etc.). The
common category of the “generic noun . . . focuses on the kind. . . .
emphasizes class traits . . . [and] has in view . . . the class as a whole”
(pg. 244, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament, Daniel B. Wallace. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
cf. the
verb e˙kklhsia¿zw, “to hold an assembly, convene, assemble.” (BDAG); “summon to an assembly” (Liddell, H. G.
& Scott, R. Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996); “attend an assembly; attend a church
service” (Patristic Greek Lexicon
ed. G. W. Lampe (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007, 20th
ed). The verb is always employed
in the LXX and related Koiné
literature (at least until after the time of the post-NT development of the
concept of a catholic church) for a visible and local assembly, not some sort
of invisible and unassembled “assembly.” See Leviticus 8:3; Numbers 20:8;
Deuteronomy 4:10; 31:12, 28; Esther 4:16, LXX; Josephus, Antiquities 4:302; 6:56; 8:277; 10:93; 12:316; 17:161; 19:158; War 2:490; 7:47; Philo, On the Migration of Abraham 1:69; On Joseph 1:73; On the Decalogue
1:39; Freedom 1:6.
Deuteronomy
4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:2-4, 9; 31:30; Joshua 8:35; Judges 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1
Samuel 17:47; 19:20; 1 Kings 8:14, 22, 55, 65; 1 Chronicles 13:2, 4; 28:2, 8;
29:1, 10, 20; 2 Chronicles 1:3, 5; 6:3, 12-13; 7:8; 10:3; 20:5, 14; 23:3;
28:14; 29:23, 28, 31-32; 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23-25; Ezra 2:64; 10:1, 8, 12, 14;
Nehemiah 5:7, 13; 7:66; 8:2, 17; 13:1; Judith 6:16, 21; 7:29; 14:6; 1 Maccabees
2:56; 3:13; 4:59; 5:16; 14:19; Psalms 21:23, 26; 25:5, 12; 34:18; 39:10; 67:27;
88:6; 106:32; 149:1; Proverbs 5:14; Job 30:28; Sirach 15:5; 21:17; 23:24; 24:2;
26:5; 31:11; 33:19; 38:33; 39:10; 44:15; 46:7; 50:13, 20; Solomon 10:6; Micah
2:5; Joel 2:16; Lamentations 1:10.
classical use of e˙kklhsi÷a [transliterating the word as ecclesia], documenting that the word, in classical Greek,
signified “an organized assembly of citizens, regularly summoned, as opposed to
other meetings.” Note:
present state of things… did not call them to an assembly (ecclesia) or any
other meeting.”
(ecclesia) adjourned, they came together and planned … For the future still
being uncertain, meetings and speeches of all sorts took place in the
marketplace. They were afraid that an assembly (ecclesia) would be summoned
suddenly, etc.” Compare the distinction here between a lawfully assembled
business body and a mere gathering together of the people in unofficial
capacity, with the town-clerk’s statement in Acts 19:35, 40.
ecclesia of the several Greek states –
himself, since he was ephor, put the question to vote in the assembly
(ecclesia) of the Spartans.”
house (or called an assembly, ecclesia) freely exchanged their sentiments.”
assembly (ecclesia) for the Thracians about pay.”
assembly (ecclesia) … voted, etc.”
their dead, summoned an assembly (ecclesia).”
business assemblies of the several petty but independent, self-governing Greek
states, with their lawful conference, their free speech. Their decision by
vote, whether of Spartans, Thracians, Syracusans or Athenians, sounds much like
the proceedings of particular and independent Baptist churches today (Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll, pgs. 35-36).
the uses of the word in the LXX and other pre-Christian works supports the
evidence from the instances of e˙kklhsi÷a in New Testament
itself that the word always signifies a particular, visible assembly. “[A]n inductive study of all the ecclesia passages [in the LXX demonstrates] that in the
Septuagint it never means ‘all Israel whether assembled or unassembled, but
that in every instance it means a
gathering together, and assembly. . . . [T]he New Testament writers neither
coined this word nor employed it in an unusual sense. The apostles and early
Christians . . . wrote in Greek to a Greek-speaking world, and used Greek words
as a Greek-speaking people would understand them. . . . [I]t is a fiction that ecclesia was used in [the New Testament in] any new, special
sense. The object of Christ’s ecclesia, and terms of membership in it, were indeed different from those of the
classic or Septuagint ecclesia.
But the word itself retains its ordinary meaning. . . . [In contrast to ecclesia], the word panegyros [was employed to designate] a general, festive
assembly of all the Greek states.
This general assembly was not for war but peace . . . not for business
but pleasure—a time of peace, and joy, and glory. In the happy Greek conceit
all the heavenly beings were supposed to be present [at the panegyros]. How felicitiously does [Paul] adapt himself to the
Greek use of the word [in Hebrews 12:23], and glorify it by application to the
final heavenly state. . . . [Thus, there] is a general assembly . . . [in
heaven where] warfare is over and rest has come [designated by panegyros, but never by ecclesia].” (pgs. 34-36, Ecclesia, Carroll).
It is true
that the bride metaphor is employed for the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2-3)
as a synecdoche for all the people of God who will inhabit it. However, at that time they will all be
present in the future heavenly festive assembly (Hebrews 12:23). There will indeed be this coming
gathering of all the saints to the eternal heavenly City, but it will still be
quite local and visible, it does not yet exist, and it certainly does not prove
that saved people on earth in the United States, Colombia, Vietnam, and the
Central African Republic are somehow currently members of the same,
never-assembling and invisible congregation, assembly, church, or ekklesia.
There are
many other practical impossibilities and ecclesiological errors that come from
the universal church view. Dr.
Thomas Strouse has well explained a number of them:
local church is the body of Christ, that Spirit Baptism was a temporary
phenomenon, and that the mystical body of Christ does not exist are broad and
serious. If there is no con-current Spirit Baptism and no mystical body then
there is no divine authority for organizations or efforts outside of the local
church to practice the Great Commission. Since the Great Commission (Mt.
28:19-20) requires evangelism, baptism, and instruction in the Word of God,
para-church organizations have no divine authority for their existence. If
there is no divine authority for para-church organizations then there is no
divine authority for para-church Bible colleges/seminaries, mission boards, or
structured church fellowships, associations or conventions. These so-called
“handmaidens” to the local church have no authority “to help” the Lord’s
candlesticks because the latter have His presence (Rev. 1:13) as their
respective Head (Eph. 1:22-23) and all power to accomplish His Great Commission
(Mt. 28:19-20). The impact of these para-church “handmaidens” on the Lord’s
candlesticks has been biblically and theologically disastrous. Scholars
operating in the realm of the “big” universal church offer unbiblical and
therefore confusing theological restatements of the Scriptures. Their weak
ecclesiology impacts other doctrines such as bibliology, soteriology, and
eschatology. They foster notions such as “God has preserved His Word in all the
extant manuscripts through the scholars of the mystical body of Christ,” “all
the saved are in the universal Church,” and “Christ will rapture the Church.”
To them “true” scholarship occurs in the para-church university or seminary
where theologians, trained by other para-church theologians, postulate the
“truth” of Scripture. The local church is ill equipped and the pastor is ill
prepared to do the real work of the ministry in the realm of scholarship, they
maintain. These scholars, whether they have any affiliation with a local church
or not, have earned doctorates from accredited para-church academic
institutions, and therefore think that they have the last word on theology.
Their condescending attitude toward the Lord’s assemblies is supposedly
justified because they are the “doctors” of theology since they are in “the big
church.” This disastrous impact undermines the authority of the Bible and
usurps the ministry of the Lord’s ekklesia. Scripture states that the church is
“the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15), that the ekklesia is to
“commit [theological training] to faithful men” (II Tim. 2:2), that the church
member “is to study to shew [himself] approved unto God” (II Tim. 2:15), and
that the assembly has been given Christ’s gift of “pastors and teachers” (Eph.
4:11). The local church as the divinely ordained doctrinal training institution
is the Lord’s “college.” College comes from the Latin collegeum that means a group of colleagues who have banded
together around a particular guild or trade. The particular “guild” in which
the local church is engaged is the scholarly pursuit of studying the Scriptures
(cf. Acts 17:11). Para-church organizations not only produce disastrous
results in theological academia, but also in the area of missions. Para-church
mission boards usurp the privilege and responsibility of local church missions.
The Great Commission is the divine mandate to plant immersionist assemblies
both locally and worldwide. Only the Lord’s candlesticks can produce NT
churches. Para-church mission boards cannot baptize converts and cannot
commission missionary candidates. Nevertheless, these same boards develop a
hierarchy of unbiblical offices, such as “missions president/director,” and
dictate to “their” missionaries and to the pastors of supporting churches,
their policies, practices, and doctrines. The NT teaches, in contradistinction,
that the church at Antioch acted as Paul’s “mission board” and sent out
Barnabas and the Apostle (Acts 13:1 ff.). To be sure, other churches such as
the Philippian church helped support Paul’s missionary endeavors on his second
journey (Phil. 4:15-16). Much of the same criticism could be leveled toward
highly structured Baptist fellowships. The unbiblical mindset of the universal
church produces the necessity for organized hierarchy outside of the local
church. Fellowships, associations and conventions, which develop organizational
structure beyond the local church, end up usurping the autonomy of each of the
Lord’s assemblies. The presidents, regional directors, etc., of these
non-authorized structures tend to dictate to the churches resolutions which in
turn become “suggested” tenets for orthodoxy and fundamentalism. Some pastors
feel intimidated and hesitate to reject these suggestions, ultimately embracing
the “traditions” of men (Mk. 7:7) and incorporating these tenets in their
particular ekklesia. The NT does teach that there is a place for churches to
fellowship around “the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Furthermore, the churches of Galatia were united in biblical doctrine around
the Lord Jesus Christ, while retaining their respective autonomy (Gal. 1:2;
3:27-28). Once the Lord’s churches recognize that the unproved assumptions of
Spirit Baptism and the mystical body of Christ have no biblically exegetical
defense, then they may realize the authority, importance, and dignity the Lord
gives exclusively to His candlesticks. The Scriptures teach that the church at
Jerusalem had the divine authority in precept and set the precedent to practice
the Great Commission. Christ gave the precept of the Great Commission to the
apostles who were representatives of the 120 disciples who made up the Lord’s
ekklesia on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:20). This ekklesia began to
evangelize, baptize and instruct Jews and Gentiles as the Book of Acts gives
ample precedent. The Scriptures make some amazing and outstanding claims for
the Lord’s churches. For instance, Paul taught that Christ, Who is Head over
all His creation, completely fills His body, the local church (Eph. 1:23). He
revealed that the saints in the local churches teach the angelic realm
redemptive truths (Eph. 3:10). He averred that local churches, like the
Ephesian church, grow up in Christ to become mature bodies through doctrinal
teaching (Eph. 4:11-16). He proclaimed that the Lord Jesus Christ both loved
and died for individual church members (Eph. 5:25) and that He will cleanse the
church members through the washing of the word to present each ekklesia as
glorious (Eph. 5:26-27). Elsewhere, the Apostle taught that the local church,
the one with a bishop and deacons, was the pillar and ground of the truth (I
Tim. 3:1-15). The Lord spoke through the Apostle John and gave His
apocalyptical revelation to seven local churches (Rev. 1-3). When one realizes
that the Scriptures teach the local church is the Lord’s sole institution for
His presence, worship and service, then one recognizes the glory, dignity, and
honor that should be attributed to each and every one of Christ’s assemblies. (“Ye
Are The Body of Christ,” Dr. Thomas M. Strouse. Emmanuel Baptist Theological
Seminary, Newington, CT. elec. acc.
http://www.faithonfire.org/articles/body_of_christ.html)
Spirit Baptism, the Historic Baptist View, part 9
Spirit’s being poured out or shed
forth (Acts 2:17, 18, 33), employing the
Greek verb ekkeo (e˙kce÷w), is employed
in Acts 2 in connection with Spirit baptism.[i] This one-time event[ii]
where the Father, at the Son’s request, poured out the Holy Ghost in accordance
with the prediction of Joel 2:28-32, is employed in Luke-Acts only for the
unrepeatable event of Pentecost.
This is consistent with the facts that the Hebrew verb shafach (Kpv), employed in Joel 2 and discussed above, “does
not mean a gradual pouring as required, but rather a sudden, massive spillage,”
the LXX employs ekkeo to render shafach in the three passages where the latter verb is
connected with the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-29; Zechariah 12:10;
Ezekiel 39:29), and the Greek verb is not employed in the Greek Old Testament
in connection with Spirit outpouring in any other passage. No other text in Luke-Acts connects the
work of the Spirit with ekkeo,[iii]
although the closely related but distinct verb ekkunno (e˙kcu/nnw)[iv]
is employed in Acts 10:45 for the closely related but distinct miraculous work
of the Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10.
When “the Holy Ghost . . .[was] shed forth” or poured out, visible
miracles, “which ye now see and hear,” were connected with the event (Acts 2:33). Thus, the outpouring of the Spirit was
for those already converted and already church members, it took place once for
the entire church age in Acts chapter two, and it was accompanied with signs
and wonders. For the Spirit to be
outpoured again, He would have to leave the earth, which He will not do for the
entire dispensation of grace.
However, after He is removed at the Rapture, He will be outpoured again
on Israel in the Tribulation in the ultimate fulfillment of Joel chapter two.
contrast to the once-for-all outpouring of the Spirit on the church for the
entirety of the dispensation of grace in Acts 2, when the Spirit’s validation
of Samaritans[v] and Gentiles
as fit members of the NT church in Acts 8 and 10 is in view, the Spirit is said
to fall upon (e˙pipi÷ptw) them after their
conversion (Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15).
Christ baptized the church with the Spirit directly and immediately in
Acts 2, and the benefits of this one-time event were transmitted mediately
through the apostles to Samaritans and Gentiles in Acts 8, 10, and 19,
explaining the connection of the miraculous fruits of Spirit baptism in
connection with the laying on of apostolic hands. The uniqueness of Acts 2, as the actual and unrepeatable act
of Spirit baptism, is supported by the appearances of tongues of fire on each
member of the pre-Pentecost church (2:2-3), a miracle not repeated in the
coming of the Spirit on the groups in Acts 8, 10, and 19. The Spirit fell upon the Samaritans
subsequent to both faith and baptism in Acts 8, and the use of a pluperfect
periphrastic construction for Spirit’s falling upon men in 8:16 suggests that
the falling took place at one point in time, with abiding results;[vi] furthermore, no text in Acts or
elsewhere in the New Testament portrays the Spirit as repeatedly falling upon
anyone.[vii] One would have expected the Spirit to
fall upon the Gentiles in Acts 10 after their faith and baptism as well, but
Peter and his Jewish brethren would never have accepted the immersion of
Gentiles had the Spirit not come on them first; as it was, they “were astonished” that the Spirit had fallen
upon the Gentiles (10:45), but recognized the fact as proof that God wanted
them added to the church by immersion, which they consequently performed
(10:47-48), although even in this situation the addition of uncircumcised
Gentiles to the church was an occasion of trouble which Peter needed to explain
and defend (11:3ff.). In both Acts
8 and 10, the Spirit fell upon the Samaritans and Gentiles subsequent to the
point of their faith in Christ, with an emphasis upon them as a corporate body,
rather than as individuals, just as in Acts 2 and 19 the coming of the Spirit
took place after saving faith.[viii] Since Peter states, “the Holy Ghost
fell on them [Gentiles, Acts 10], as on us [Jews, Acts 2] at the beginning”
(Acts 11:15), the book of Acts indicates that it is appropriate to view the
pouring out of the Holy Ghost on the church in Acts 2 as another instance of
the Spirit falling upon a body of people.
It is likely that the falling upon
terminology emphasizes the coming of the Spirit from heaven upon a particular
group of believers, and is thus appropriately employed for any of the
miraculous bestowals of the Spirit recorded in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19. However, this terminology is never
employed for the receipt of the Spirit by individuals at the moment of
conversion, nor is it ever found apart from the miraculous bestowal of the gift
of tongues, nor is it ever connected with any kind of PCP blessing on those
already Spirit-indwelt.
Acts two, the Spirit was poured out on
the 120 pre-Pentecost church members, but Acts 2:38 promised those who “repent
. . . [that they] shall receive [lamba¿nw] the gift of the Holy
Ghost.”[ix] Receive terminology is employed both for the indwelling of the Spirit
experienced by all believers after the transitional period connected with the
baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts, which was not connected with signs and
wonders (cf. Romans 8:9), and for the commencement of His indwelling in those
who experienced Spirit baptism and its concomitant speaking in tongues. Thus, the Spirit was received by the 3000 men converted on Pentecost, but He was poured
out also (and in this manner likewise received) by
the 120 members of the pre-Pentecost church. There is no evidence that the 3000 spoke in tongues or
manifested any miraculous gifts when they repented, or at any subsequent point
whatever, other than the certain manifestation of the miraculously bestowed new
nature bestowed on all saints in regeneration (2:41-47; 2 Corinthians
5:17). Christ received from the
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost (2:33), and the Son gives the Spirit to
all who find salvation (2:38-39), but the “promise” (2:39) of the possession of
the Holy Ghost is of Him as a Person, not of some particular manner of His
coming, such as Spirit baptism with its accompanying signs and wonders. Receipt of the Spirit is thus specified as a gift for
believers throughout the dispensation of grace, received at the point of
conversion or regeneration (John 3:5), in Luke-Acts (Acts 2:38) and elsewhere
in Scripture (John 7:39; Galatians 3:14), but receive language is also used for the action of the Spirit
in falling upon men in the dispensationally transitional events accompanied
with miraculous phenomena in Acts 2, 8, and 10 (Acts 8:15-19; 10:47; cf. Acts
19:2, 6; John 20:22).
tongues speaking,[x] is also
associated with the Spirit “coming upon” (e˙pe÷rcomai . . . e˙pi÷) the church in Acts
1:8. This language is thus
employed in the beginning of Acts for the miraculous coming of the Spirit, and
is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in the beginning of Luke’s gospel
for the miraculous work of the Spirit within Mary associated with the coming of
the Son into the world (Luke 1:35).[xi] The miraculous coming of the Spirit,
associated with tongues speaking, found in Acts 19:6, employs similar, but not
identical, “coming upon” language (e¶rcomai
. . . e˙pi÷), which is
found elsewhere in the NT (yet cf. Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24, 37:9; Wisdom 7:7; LXX) only
in the record of Christ’s baptism with its associated visibly miraculous
manifestation of the Spirit (Matthew 3:16). The pneumatological coming upon language of Acts is thus appropriately considered as
necessarily accompanied with signs and wonders.
fits the evidence found in the book of Acts. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was the validation of the
church as God’s new institution for worship, comparable to the coming of the shekinah into the tabernacle and temple in the Old
Testament. Accompanied by
miraculous signs and wonders, Christ baptized the church as as a one-time event
in Acts two on the day of Pentecost.
As the Jewish church of Pentecost spread to the Samaritans (Acts 8),
Gentiles connected with Judaism and in the Promised Land (Acts 10), and
Gentiles without any previous Jewish connection (Acts 19), the Spirit came,
mediately through the apostles as representatives and leaders of the church,
upon these new groups with similar signs and wonders, fulfilling the outline of
the book of Acts in 1:8. With the
immediate baptism of the church by Christ in Acts 2, and the coming of the
Spirit as mediated by the apostles on the groups in Acts 8, 10, and 19, Spirit
baptism was complete, never to be repeated in the church age. The evidence of the book of Acts
contradicts the universal church dispensational (UCD) view because Spirit
baptism was corporate, not individual, a post-conversion event, not one
synonymous with conversion, one always associated with miraculous signs and
wonders including tongues, while tongues and other miraculous gifts have now
ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8),[xii]
one that took place after the moment of faith and, with one exception, after
baptism as well, not one that took place at the moment of saving faith, and one
associated with the historically completed sending of the Comforter, not one
without visible miraculous phenomena that continues until the Rapture whenever
a sinner is regenerated. The
evidence of the book of Acts also contradicts the PCP (post-conversion power) view,
because PCPs interpret Spirit baptism as an individual, not corporate event,
most PCPs do not claim that they receive the same ability to do miracles,
signs, and wonders as were found in Acts, while the evidence belies the claims
of those that do so claim,[xiii]
and the Comforter has already come to indwell the church and so Spirit baptism
simply does not happen today. Only
the historic Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism fits the evidence of the book
of Acts.
It is the
opinion of this writer that there are indeed distinctions in the different
terms employed for the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, as explicated
in the following paragraphs. Some
distinctions are more evident (as that receive refers to simply the coming of the Spirit for the
purpose of indwelling, whether through Spirit baptism of one already converted
before Pentecost or at the moment of regeneration after the post-Pentecost
transition, in contrast to words, such as pour out, specifically used for the coming of the Spirit
associated with miraculous phenomena) than others. However, even if one wished to maintain that the various
terms analyzed below are essentially synonymous, it would not alter the
fundamental nature of Spirit baptism as a historical event accompanied with
signs and wonders that was completed in the first century and was synonymous
with Christ’s sending of the Comforter.
distinction between the Spirit’s being poured out and Spirit baptism, and the comments on some of the other terms
discussed in the following paragraphs.
There is
no exegetical basis in the New Testament for praying for the Spirit to be
repeatedly poured out in the church age to send revival or for any other
reason. No durative, progressive
verb tense is employed with the verb e˙kce÷w
in the New Testament for the Spirit being poured out; the future tense, which is aspectually like the aorist, is
employed for the prediction of the pouring out which took place once for all at
Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18; Joel 3:1-2, LXX), and the aorist is employed for the
actual pouring out that took place on that day (Acts 2:33). The indwelling and renewing of the
Spirit that takes place at regeneration is possibly also connected with e˙kce÷w in the aorist (Titus 3:5-6). The “pour out” language is not employed
in the New Testament for a work from the Spirit of deepening the saint’s
spiritual life, reviving a congregation, or anything of the sort. Although God may mercifully do great
things for misguided saints of His, praying for the Spirit to be poured out
again in the church age and similar instances of errant Pneumatology do not
contribute to genuine revival.
Believers should not grieve the Holy Ghost and disregard or deny the
sufficiency of the glorious work God has already done in pouring out the Spirit
by asking for Him to be again outpoured.
Titus
3:5-6 speaks of “the Holy Ghost; which [the Father] shed on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Pneu/matoß ÔAgi÷ou, ou∞ e˙xe÷ceen e˙f∆ hJma◊ß plousi÷wß,
dia» ∆Ihsouv Cristouv touv swthvroß hJmw◊n). Here an allusion back to Pentecost is
likely, since the historia salutis
is in view in the sentence (3:4).
Consider, in light of the significance of Kpv as a
massive outpouring and the NT rendering of the verb with e˙kce÷w, that Titus 3:6 specifies that the Holy Ghost was
“shed on us abundantly” (e˙xe÷ceen e˙f∆ hJma◊ß plousi÷wß). The text contains a “clear allusion to
the tradition of Pentecost (e˙kce÷w is used with
the Spirit in the NT only here and in Acts 2:17, 18, 33) . . . [to] the Pentecostal
outpouring of the Spirit” (pg. 166, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, James Dunn).
allusion in Titus 3:5-6, and Paul connects the moment of personal regeneration
with the verb e˙kce÷w in the text, it would
not necessarily require that there is not a distinction made in Luke-Acts. Rather, the employment of e˙kce÷w for both the historical, completed event of the
sending of the Comforter, that is, Spirit baptism (Acts 2:17-18, 33), and for
the indwelling of the Spirit (Romans 8:9) associated with regeneration (Titus
3:5-6) would manifest that the Spirit baptism event constituted the transition
from the Old Testament “with you” to the church age “in you” ministry of the
Holy Spirit (John 14:17). After
the already saved and baptized church members in Acts 2 received Spirit
baptism, they were henceforward permanently indwelt by the Spirit, and this
ministry of permanent indwelling is the inheritance of all believers after the
conclusion of the dispensational transition associated with Spirit
baptism. While Spirit baptism
marked the point of dispensational transition to the permanent indwelling
ministry of the Holy Ghost in the first century, the use of e˙kce÷w in both Acts and Titus (where an allusion back to the
events of Pentecost is most likely, in which case nowhere does the New
Testament connect e˙kce÷w and anything that
continues throughout the dispensation of grace) certainly cannot be
legitimately be used to affirm that Spirit baptism is a synonym throughout the
church age for the commencement of indwelling connected with regeneration.
BDAG, defining
e˙kce÷w, indicates that “beside it [is] the
Hellenistic Greek form e˙kcu/n(n)w.” Luke was perfectly able to use exactly
the same forms he did in Acts 2 to express the idea of pour out, but he chose not to do so. While in Acts 10:45 e˙kcu/nnw is in the perfect tense (as it is,
interestingly, in Romans 5:5), and e˙kce÷w is not found in the NT in the perfect, e˙kcu/nnw is employed by Luke in the tenses employed
for e˙kce÷w in Acts 2, so the possibility that in
Luke’s vocabulary some tenses simply employed the one verb form or the other is
unlikely, and a deliberate choice remains the preferred explanation.
Charles
Ryrie comments, “The best explanation of this delay [of the coming of the
Spirit as recorded in Acts 8 until the imposition of hands by Peter and John]
seems to lie in the schismatic nature of the Samaritan religion. Because the Samaritans had their own
worship, which was a rival to the Jewish worship in Jerusalem, it was necessary
to prove to [the Jews] that [the Samaritans’] new faith was not to be set up as
a rival to the new faith that had taken root in Jerusalem. And the best way for God to show the
Samaritan believers that they belonged to the same faith and group as Jerusalem
believers (and contrariwise, the best way to show the Jerusalem leaders that
the Samaritans were genuinely saved) was to delay giving of the Spirit until
Peter and John came from Jerusalem to Samaria. There could be no doubt then that this was one and the same
faith and that they all belonged together in the Body of Christ. This delay in the giving of the Spirit
saved the early church from having two mother churches—one in Jerusalem and one
in Samaria—early in her history.
It preserved the unity of the church[es] in this early stage” (pg. 71, The
Holy Spirit).
h™n [e˙p∆ . . . aujtw◊n] . . .
e˙pipeptwko/ß. “It is easy to see how in the present, and especially in the
future, periphrastic forms were felt to be needed to emphasize durative action.
But that was the real function of the imperfect tense. The demand for this
stressing of the durative idea by h™n and the present
participle was certainly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in
the N. T. that this idiom is most frequent” (pgs. 887-888, A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934).
The
perfect tense of e˙kcu/nnw in Acts 10:45 likewise suggests a one-time coming of
the Spirit with continuing results.
While in
Acts 8 the Spirit appears to have fallen upon each individual saved and
baptized Samaritan as hands were laid on him (note the imperfect tenses in e˙peti÷qoun ta»ß
cei√raß e˙p∆ aujtou/ß, kai« e˙la¿mbanon Pneuvma ›Agion in Acts 8:17), a group idea is still present. Likewise, in Acts 10:44, the Spirit
fell upon the entire group at one particular moment, so unless the entire group
had placed their faith in the Lord Jesus at exactly the same moment, the Spirit
fell upon them not just in logical but also in temporal subsequence to their
conversion. Temporal subsequence
also fits the comparison of this event to the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts
2 made in Acts 11:15-17, for faith certainly preceded Spirit baptism in Acts
2. One notes also the aorist tense
participle pisteu/sasin
in 11:17, which would be consistent with
temporal subsequence to the verb e¶dwken,
thus demonstrating that the Gentiles believed before the gift of the Spirit was
given, although it is true enough that aorist participles when dependent upon
aorist verbs are at times temporally simultaneous.
groups in Acts 2, 8, and 10 and 19 subsequent to faith, and upon the groups of
Acts 2, 8, and 19 after their baptism as well (Acts 10, the only exception, is
present only because the apostles would never have baptized the Gentiles at all
without the miraculous validation), demolishes the UCD claim that “[n]ever in
Scripture is baptism by the Spirit recorded as occurring subsequent to
salvation. It is rather an
inseparable part of it, so essential that it is impossible to be saved without
it” (pg. 140, The Holy Spirit:
A Comprehensive Study,
Walvoord). Rather, the truth is
that never in Scripture is baptism by the Spirit recorded as occuring at the
same moment as saving faith, so that everyone who has been saved has been saved
without it. Spirit baptism was
promised to already immersed believers in the gospels, and the fulfillment in
Acts fit the prediction. To
support his assertion of the necessity of Spirit baptism for salvation, UCD
advocate John Wavoord even affirms that “the converts on the Day of Pentecost .
. . include[d] the apostles” (pg. 144, ibid.)!
Rather, as the Head of the church was immersed in water before the
Spirit descended upon and authenticated Him in connection with the beginning of
His ministry (Matthew 3:13-17), so the church, Christ’s body, was first
immersed in water and then baptized with the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2) to
authenticate her as God’s new institution for the age.
The
grammatical structure of Acts 2:38 connects the receipt of the Holy Spirit (and
thus the new birth “of the Spirit,” John 3, and its associated receipt of
eternal life) with repentance, not baptism. The section of the verse in question could be diagrammed as
follows:
(2nd person plural aorist imperative)
imperative)
(nominative singular adjective)
. . . the Holy Ghost
the command to repent and the promised receipt of the Holy Spirit are in the
second person (i.e. e, “Repent [ye]” and “ye shall receive”). The command to be baptized is third
person singular, as is the adjective “every one” (hekastos, a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which
each person was derived.). Peter
commands the whole crowd to repent, and promises those who do the gift of the
Holy Ghost. The call to baptism was only for the “every one of you” that had
already repented. The “be baptized
every one of you” section of the verse is parenthetical to the command to
repent and its associated promise of the Spirit. Parenthetical statements, including those parallel in
structure to Acts 2:38, are found throughout Scripture. Ephesians 4:26-27 is an example:
not . . . let go down (3rd person singular imperative)
sun (nominative singular noun)
your wrath
the devil
connection in Acts 2:38 between the receipt of the Holy Spirit and repentance,
rather than baptism, overthrows attempts to find baptismal regeneration in the
verse.
One could
view the speaking about the wondrous works of God in sixteen different tongues
in Acts two as a reversal of the Tower of Babel.
But cf.
also Isaiah 32:15, LXX: eºwß
a·n e˙pe÷lqhØ e˙f∆ uJma◊ß pneuvma aÓf∆ uJyhlouv kai« e¶stai e¶rhmoß oJ Cermel
kai« oJ Cermel ei˙ß drumon logisqh/setai.
cf. “1
Corinthians 13:8-13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” R. Bruce Compton (Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004)
97-144 for an excellent exposition of the Biblical cessation of tongues from 1
Corinthians 13. Since tongues are
universally conjoined with Spirit baptism, as evidenced in Acts, and tongues
have ceased, Spirit baptism must also have ceased. Could it be that miraculous gifts were limited to those who
either received or were alive and converted by the time of the events of Acts
2, 8, 10, and 19, and that the miraculous gifts ceased with the passing away of
that generation (cf. Hebrews 2:3-4; Mark 16:17, 20)?
No modern
PCP advocate speaks in Biblical tongues because tongues have ceased (cf. the
article referenced in the last endnote), and modern PCPs that claim the gift of
healing do not instantly heal everyone of every disease without fail (Acts
5:16), do not raise the dead (Acts 9:40; 20:9-10), nor perform other truly
apostolic signs and wonders.
Recent Comments