When the Spirit Comes in Power...

[Soulfyre]

Among many, the Holy Spirit is a controversial topic. There are those, for example, that are comfortable with the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing God's truth in his word to us, convincing us of our sinfulness, and revealing himself in our transformed life through the fruit of the Spirit. They nevertheless believe that the Holy Spirit's association with “signs and wonders” (healing, speaking in unknown tongues, prophetic utterances, various miraculous interventios) essentially ended with the apostolic era, identifying the apostles as authoritative, but no longer necessary after the completion of the canon of scripture (the final recognition by the church of the books of the Bible). Others believe that this assumption does violence to the scriptures in the New Testament (especially in I Corinthians 12, 13, and 14), which may be interpreted as saying that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are expected to last until the “Perfect” comes, which is either an allusion to Jesus Christ, or the glorification of the church at the Second Coming.

I thought it would be good to discuss these things in the light of Scripture. Please feel free to share your understanding of God's word, and your experience.

God bless and keep you all,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[melinky]

Of course, I don't have the wealth of knowlege that you have on the subject Matthew, but I will speak of my own experiences and beliefs.

For me, the Holy Spirit is a gentle nudge, a feeling in my heart that tells me God is with me. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us where God would have us go and enables us to do the things He calls us to do.

When I was young, we attended a church where a woman began speaking in tongues. It made me incredibly uncomfortable and still does today. Do I think it's wrong, absolutely not. It just doesn't work for me.

1 COR 12:4-13 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

[mpethe]

The title for this thread shares the name of a book I have on this topic - by James White.

White doesn't look so much at the Biblical arugment as he does look at some mordern day accounts of manifestations of the Spirit. In particular he spent a lot of time analyzing the Vineyard movement when led by John Wimber. Anyway - it's a facinating read if you ever get the chance....

Personally, I believe all the gifts are still active in the church today - as they were in the Net Testament. The only issue I would contend is that of the gift of apostleship (or rather the office of Apostle). I would say that there are those that may still function in the role of an "apostle" today - but do not carry the same authority as the original 12 + Paul. The Bible is final; no person may claim authority over it.

Despite my charistmatic leanings, I understand that this area can be quite controversial ... and don't blame people at all when they are sceptical.

An interesting question to me is: if you believe that all of those gifts are still in operation today ... are they needed by the church?

If God gave them to the original church, we can fairly suppose that it was because they were needed. If they weren't rescinded, are they not still needed today? If they are still needed today, why do many churches shy away from them? Is "beacuse they cause controversy" really a good answer?

Your thoughts?

[Juan]

I have done a fair bit of study on the subject, and I came to just a couple of conclusions:

1) The gifts are not necessary. The gospel of grace which is the important part of our faith, relies on just that, our faith, not our gifts. It is a show of God's mercy that exists regardless of the gifts. Ultimately faith, hope, and love are what is left.

2) Our desire needs to be for God. Often, I have seen the desire for the gifts trump the desire for God. We can't want God because we want the gifts, for I think obvious reasons.

3) We can't desire the gifts for works. This is a tougher one to argue. Ultimately God will give us gifts for works, but we can't want it that way. Otherwise we will be often frustrated, saying God why can't we heal this woman, (or something like that) when we can't do it.

We often falter on these, I think, because of our lack of understanding on grace... I think Paul puts it best in Romans 4:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

RO 4:4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

[melinky]

I think for some people the gifts are necessary. I think different people need different "things" from their religion. Some are moved by music, like myself, while others will argue that the music detracts from the message. Some people need to feel they are subject to strict discipline while others need to feel freed for joyful obedience. I think that for some, the more charismatic gifts, bring them closer to God while others don't need them.

I honestly don't believe that there is only one way to practice Christianity and that's the beauty of different denominations. Yes, we are all subject to the Bible and when you get down to core beliefs, they are all pretty much the same, what differs are the details. I realize that this is a very simplistic attitude, but I tend to be rather simplistic.

[mpethe]

Juan said:

I have done a fair bit of study on the subject, and I came to just a couple of conclusions:

1) The gifts are not necessary. The gospel of grace which is the important part of our faith, relies on just that, our faith, not our gifts. It is a show of God's mercy that exists regardless of the gifts. Ultimately faith, hope, and love are what is left.

I suppose I should have qualified what I meant by "necessary". I would agree that a church may function without the use of all the gifts.

I would point out that a church would not function without any gifts. Do you agree?

I would tend to think that the more gifts a church has (used as they were intended) - the better that church will function. So, to have a fully functioning, thriving church - a full range of gifts need to be present and in operation.

2) Our desire needs to be for God. Often, I have seen the desire for the gifts trump the desire for God. We can't want God because we want the gifts, for I think obvious reasons.

I think your observation is a fair one, but don't know if your conclusion necessarily follows. I think we can want gifts (for proper motives) and also passionately desire God - they need not be separated.

3) We can't desire the gifts for works. This is a tougher one to argue. Ultimately God will give us gifts for works, but we can't want it that way. Otherwise we will be often frustrated, saying God why can't we heal this woman, (or something like that) when we can't do it.

I think you make a great point here about the motives for gifts or blessing or receiving anything from God. I don't believe however, that we shouldn't seek gifts from God... especially in light of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor 12:31 and 14:1. Twice he exhorts the church to "eagerly desire" gifts.

[melinky]

mpethe said:

The only issue I would contend is that of the gift of apostleship (or rather the office of Apostle). I would say that there are those that may still function in the role of an "apostle" today - but do not carry the same authority as the original 12 + Paul.

Sometime over the past two or three months, someone made the comment that to be an apostle, one must physically come into contact with the resurrected Christ. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so, where it comes from?

[Soulfyre]

I don't believe that the Bible argues that the gifts are necessary. But I think we are remiss to dismiss anything sovereignly distributed by the Holy Spirit for the good of the body of Christ and the glory of God. Rather, it merely assumes the existence of gifts. For example, in his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul writes, beginning in chapter 12, verse 7: “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the comomon good...to one is given...to another is given...All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.” In his letter to the church at Rome, Paul flatly states: “We have different gifts according to the grace given us.” The emphasis clearly appears to be each Christian is gifted by the Holy Spirit.

There are subtle variations between the lists of gifts. In Romans, Paul lists prophesying, serving, teaching, encouraging, contributing to the needs of others, leadership, and showing mercy. In I Corinthians, Paul includes the message of wisdom, the message of knowledge, faith, healing, miraculous powers, prophecy, distinguishing between spirits, speaking in diverse tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. In Ephesians, Paul describes the gifted leaders of the church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. An indication that Paul is dealing with a similar topic in all three locations is that the church as the body of Christ is mentioned in all three, as is the emphasis that “grace” is given to each one (hence, charismata, i.e. “grace” gifts).

But two overriding points are made: these giftings are within the sovereign provenance of God, the Holy Spirit, and are given for the “common” good. Hence, one might suspect, they are given as needed—not in accordance with our particular desires for any particular gift, and, perhaps, withdrawn when no longer necessary. When Paul argues that we should “eagerly desire the greater gifts”, he uses the plural “you”. While one might argue that he means “each of you”, it is more likely that he means “you all, as the body of Christ". So we, as a community, are to desire that the Holy Spirit manifest the greater gifts within the body. This is not in exclusion to all other gifts, but as a matter of priority. The obvious question, “Why?”, is answered by Paul's consistent listing of what might be called the gifts of proclamation, or teaching leadership, first. This is not said to disparage other gifts, but to emphasize the importance of sound teaching as foundational to the proper functioning of the body of Christ.

Yet in I Corinthians 13 Paul says prophesies and knowledge will be brought to an end (the verbs are active, meaning that they will be done away with, as from an external source) and that tongues will cease (the verbs are middle, meaning “cease of their own accord”). He emphasizes the “partial” nature of the “teaching” gifts, as being unnecessary when the “Perfect” comes, when we will “know fully” even as we are “fully known”. Although there is some argument over the meaning of “perffect” in context, I believe it unnecessarily strains the text to assume that it is speaking of the “canon of scripture”. Because of the reference to knowing as one is known, it is far more likely that this is referring to the glorious return of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.

In contrast, Paul teaches that love “never fails”—that in fact, only faith, hope and love will remain, of which the greatest is love. Love is the binding element of the body of Christ. The members of the church with their diversity of gifts, like parts of a body, are each important to the body, and are given by the Holy Spirit according to the needs of the body. But for each to functiion in ministry to the body, love must undergird them, binding the members of the body together. And when even the gifts are no longer necessary, love will remain. This is not to say that gifts, even speaking in tongues (though sometimes mired in controversy and rarely used in a Biblical manner), aren't of value to the body of Christ, but that without love, they are of no value at all.

[Soulfyre]

The title for this thread shares the name of a book I have on this topic - by James White.

Good memory, Paul. I've read the book, and it was very good. John White has always been a careful author. I certainly understand John Wimber's teaching concerning “power evangelism” (i.e. evangelism accompanied by miraculous signs). It is actually seen more often on the mission field, where God will sometimes confront idolatry and shamanism with displays of His sovereign power. But I also believe it is an area which must be approached with considerable caution, lest we ourselves become like the Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus’ ministry, who demanded “signs”, and were told they would receive none save the sign of Jonah, or become like Simon Magus in Acts, who longed for the power to lay hands on people with the effect that they receive the Holy Spirit, for his own selfish motives.

The problem often comes, as in the “Toronto blessing”, that such displays begin to take on importance in and of themselves, or begin to be sought as an end in themselves. In Kansas City, a group began to grow around some individuals that became referred to as the “Kansas City prophets”. When this occurs, I believe that the church has taken its eyes from Jesus Christ, and adopted the follies of the church of Corinth (“I am of Appolos”, “I am of Paul”, etc.).

Concerning the question of apostleship, there is much controversy. It is generally accepted that the apostles were specifically defined as ones who had been commissioned directly by the living Lord, whether before or after his resurrection. There is even some disagreement as to whether such a title could truly apply to Matthias, who was chosen by lot from among those “men who have been with us [the eleven] the whole time the Lord Jesus when in and out among us”, to take the place of Judas. There seems to have been a general and particular use of the word “apostle” (more akin to our word “ambassador”). Even among the ancient churches (Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox) that believe in “apostolic succession”, the title of “apostle” is treated with a particular reverence, and is generally not used as applying officially to other than the eleven, Paul, and James and Jude (the half-brothers or cousins of Jesus Christ).

Personally, I have never felt entirely comfortable with understanding “apostles” to be a current gift to the church.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[worthily]

canon of scripture (the final recognition by the church ...
---matthew

i apologize, but i would like to point out that the above statement made is very presumptuous matthew and you speak on behalf of councils that do not merit infallibility therefore as time passes the mistakes made by the councils can surface. As justifiable to state a final recognition of the 'church' is to encompass a final rendering towards infallibility.

[Soulfyre]

While I recognize that mistakes can be made, and frequently are made, by men, God's revelation, The Word in His word, remains inerrant and infallable. It is good to always lay the traditions of men alongside the Holy Scriptures, and be on your guard to avoid accepting man's traditions as God's truth. But we are also to avoid "philosophy and empty deceit", which derives from the "traditions of men" and from the "rudiments of this world", rather than from Jesus Christ. Hence, we should not dismiss lightly the wisdom of early leaders in the church, who at times may have seen more clearly the heresies which we seem today to blithely accept or ignore.

Matthew (soulfyre)