Why Christianity?
The Bible is full of proofs and writings about a God named Yahweh. He is seen as the omnipotent God, and having a plan for all of creation. When this Biblical truth is pitched against a world that does not believe the Bible, sometimes such a statement—if made baselessly—can turn out to be caustic rather than reassuring. How can one know that the God of Abraham is the one true God, if the Holy Scripture is put away from the argument? I am convinced that the evidence will affirm not only that there is a God, but also that there is a more than ample amount of support lent to the accuracy of the Bible.
Of course, in order to make a case for the God of the Bible, the case for his existence must first be established. To make the presupposition that God exists, so that the issue would simply be one of which “flavor” of religion to pick would close this argument to an entire subset of people who are not convinced of his very existence. Advocates militant against the idea of a God generally make the case that in order for God to be proven, all other legitimate theories and options must be effectively refuted. The difficulty in this argument is that although it is true, it can be demonstrated fairly easily that it is not as conclusive of an argument as some think. Dr. Hovind, a young-earth creationist scientist and speaker, gave a good illustration of the inconclusive nature of the argument. Let’s say we have a watermelon, and we claim that the watermelon’s inside is green until the outside is pierced, which causes it to turn red. To whom is the burden of proof, the person making the claim, or the person disbelieving the claim? In the same way, every viable theory must take upon itself the burden of its own proof. In other words, evidence for other alternatives to the existence of God must be proven first before it is the true responsibility for the theists to refute it. The theory that most orthodox Christians adhere to is the six-day creation theory, derived from a literal understanding of the Genesis 1 account of the creation. A proper counter examination of this argument against God is that while God has not been proven, he has not been effectively disproven either. Theologically speaking, the Christian will say that it is impossible to prove God, since the Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6); however, there are still many arguments for the existence of God that are decisive although perhaps not conclusive.
There are four logical arguments for the existence of God as articulated by Ryrie: the ontological, teleological, anthropological, and cosmological argument (31-36). The ontological argument is a deductive one, and although it is not conclusive, it is still worth mentioning and creates difficult questions for people to answer. The argument logically states that as having an idea of “ens realissimum” i.e. God, that as such the idea necessitates the reality of God (Caputo 687). Kant, who adamantly rejects the logic of the ontological argument, describes the logic this way: “If I say, the concept of the ens realissimum is a concept, and indeed the only concept, which is appropriate and adequate to necessary existence, I must also admit that necessary existence can be inferred from this concept” (qtd. in Caputo 687). Ryrie supports this argument by showing that there is indeed an inductive aspect to it. He notes that every idea that man has must be accounted for, although it doesn’t necessarily demonstrate its truth. He succinctly notes, “Not every idea that people have corresponds to an ontological reality. But ideas do have causes and need to be accounted for… The idea of God exists. How is it to be accounted for?” (36).
In a similar vein of thought, the anthropological argument is a logical argument that examines peoples’ motives, ethics, and morals. Ryrie summarizes the argument by saying that “a living, intelligent creature argues for a living, intelligent Creator” (36). Paul the apostle also used the anthropological argument to witness at the Areopagus in the book of Acts. Toussaint, a member of faculty at the Dallas Theological Seminary, in his commentary of Acts 17:25-29 explains the situation this way:
All people—Athenians along with all others—are God’s offspring, not in the sense that they are all his redeemed children or in the sense that they all possess an element of deity, but in the sense that they are created by God and receive their very life and breath from him (v. 25)… The conclusion is inevitable: since humans have been created by God, the divine being, he cannot possibly be in the form of an idol, an image conceived and constructed by man (403-404).
Of course, the argument has been adapted since people do not generally worship golden idols literally anymore. The principle still remains though, that humanity has to explain where the idea of morality comes from, as well as the idea of right and wrong, and the idea of God. Why does it seem that man tends toward religion? Regardless of culture, race, or even technological progression, religion and the idea of God is still prevalent in mankind. The anthropological argument is that this need is internal in man because God has personally instilled that need in us (Ryrie 35).
The teleological argument and the cosmological arguments are similar, and can be dealt with together. The cosmological argument states that as every effect must have an adequate cause, the effect of a universe must have an adequate cause; namely, a creator God (Caputo 688). The teleological argument goes a step further by saying that the observed organization of the universe—from cellular biology and amino acids to astronomical phenomena like black holes and galaxies and stars—demands that somebody very creative be the designer (Ryrie 34-35). This is most commonly known as the watchmaker theory; since just as one would see a watch and conclude that there is a watchmaker who designed the intricate parts of the watch, in the same way one may look at the complexity of the universe and conclude that there is a creative God who designed it. It is interesting to note that the Bible has already been making this point for thousands of years: “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?” (Isa. 40:12). One must not look farther than one’s own body, as anatomy and physiology demonstrates the amazing complexity of design in every aspect of the universe. Sarah Kinder, a certified nurse’s assistant and biologist, describes the complexity of the human body thusly:
The human body is incredibly complex, if you want to take it down to the cellular level, any single cell taken from your body has more processes than we can count: cellular signaling, proteins and enzymes, etc. There is no logical or reasonable possibility at all that this happened by chance. For example, all of the organ systems of the body: the integumentary, skeletal, muscular, cardiovascular, nervous, urinary, digestive, reproductive, and immune systems are immensely detailed and intricate even individually. Put together, the entire body is nothing less than a miracle.
For comparison, Charles Darwin, historically known as the father of modern evolution, states in his book,
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved (243).
With such amazing complexity and evidence of design in the human body alone, the case for a designer God becomes one difficult to ignore. In spite of such overwhelming evidence, there are some who still yet create a counterargument to this position.
The logical antithesis in opposition to Theism is Atheism. The argument of the Atheist is not entirely complex standing alone. The etymology of the word shows that it is pretty much self defined. It comes from the Greek word “ἄθεος” (atheos), which is defined in Danker’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, means “pertaining to being without a relationship to God, without God,” or, “one who disdains or denies God or the gods and their laws, god-denier”(24). Atheism in modern terms then can be defined as the belief that God does not exist, or a denial of the existence of a divine being. Richard Dawkins, a renowned evolutionist and Atheist, goes even further to advocate what is called “militant atheism,” or a belief that religion and God is caustic to the human race. Holding to a system of belief that is summed up in a negative presupposition (God does not exist) makes their statement of non-faith very simple, as they only need to defend themselves against others who make an argument that God does indeed exist.
The most basic presupposition in the doctrine of Atheism is that God is impossible to prove, and therefore is an improbable reality. Dr. Dawkins concisely states it this way, “The standard creationist argument—there is only one they all reduce to this one—takes off from statistical improbability… This argument of course shoots itself in the foot, any designer capable of designing something really complex has to be more complex himself.” It is impossible to explain how God came into being; in fact, the Christian faith holds to the belief that God is eternal, and had no beginning. So here we have two alternatives: either eternal matter inexplicably became more complex (against the laws of thermodynamics), or an eternal and infinitely complex God inexplicably and with great design created an already complex universe that is becoming more chaotic as time continues. It can quickly be noted that both statements have the word ‘inexplicably,’ which brings to the forefront the fact that both theories require some amount of imagination on the part of man. The question of choosing which theory on the basis of statistics becomes this: should we say that order has come from disorder, or that order has come from greater order?
It should be noted before coming to a conclusion on the matter that the word ‘disorder’ is slightly imprecise in this context, because although it would be disorder that we have come from (adopting the most recent and popular Big Bang Theory), it would also be senselessness. Thermodynamics is not the only physical law that is broken when looking at the Atheist’s theory. One noteworthy example is the Law of the Preservation of Angular Momentum. This law is from basic physics, and states that the total angular momentum of a system has constant magnitude and direction if the system is subjected to no external force (“Conservation”). In other words, in a closed system, the total angular momentum of the system will not change. Kent Hovind used this illustration in his lecture, explaining that if one mass breaks off spinning at a certain angular magnitude, then the fragments themselves would spin off at the same magnitude and direction. This being assumed by the conservation law, then the Big Bang Theory becomes not only statistically improbable, but also physically impossible. Hovind points out that two and possibly three planets in our solar system are rotating backwards, as well as moons, and even entire galaxies. Since this is true, then how could everything have originated from a spinning dot? The answer is simple: it could not. It would be a safe assumption to conclude that God is very likely (if it is not certainly so) to exist, but the question now becomes: why the God of the Bible?
The Bible is an incredibly beautiful piece of literature. Its 66 books are written thousands of years apart by at least 30 different individuals from shepherds and kings to wine tasters and tent makers. It is fascinating then to see why all of these different books seem to work together seamlessly to create one grand tapestry of doctrine, history, and prophecy. Fulfilled prophecy is the hallmark of the Bible. For example, the book of Daniel accurately prophesied the rising and falling of four separate empires in chapter 7. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece under Alexander the Great, and even the Roman Empire were all prophesied to come and go by Daniel. He was even so precise as to describe the co-dominance of the Medes and Persians (having told king Belshazzar of Babylon that his kingdom would be taken by the Medes and the Persians in 5:28). Other examples of fulfilled prophecy are far too many to completely catalogue here. To look at just a few, compare Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew 1:18, 24, 25. In this passage the virgin birth is predicted hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and it is fulfilled to the letter. Micah 5:2 with Matthew 2:1; these passages are the prediction that the child would be born in Bethlehem, and its fulfillment. Once again, the time gap between these verses is hundreds of years. Even within the Old Testament itself there are prophecies that are fulfilled in that same era. Take 1 Samuel 3:13-14 with 1 Kings 2:27 for example. In 1 Samuel, Eli is told by God through Samuel that his lineage would never be clean from their iniquities for the rest of their days because of the wickedness of his sons. If you pick up a few generations later in 1 Kings, king Solomon casts out Abiathar from being priest in the temple saying that he was worthy of death. It is interesting in verse 27 that it says that this was done so that the word given by God to Eli would be fulfilled.
Prophecy being fulfilled is an amazingly strong evidence for the infallibility of the Bible, but that is not the only thing that is commendable about this amazing book. For ages since the compilation of the Bible, there have been debates and questions arising about the scientific and historic consistency of the Bible. For example, when evolutionary theory first developed, the argument was made against the Genesis account of the Bible. One particular argument was that of the stars’ light. By basic geometry, one can figure the distance between the earth and certain stars as being billions of light-years. By inductive reasoning, one can conclude that if one can see a star that is billions of light-years away, then the light that has traveled to earth from the star must have taken billions of years to reach us, hence the definition of a light-year. If the light took billions of years to get here, then both the universe—and consequently, the earth—is billions of years old, or our understanding of science in this situation is flawed. It wasn’t until Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity that this “contradiction” was reconciled. In Einstein’s theory, time is actually dependent on matter, and where there is an absence of matter, time moves infinitely more quickly than where there is matter, this is a result of Einstein’s famous “space-time continuum” (“Spacetime”). This proven fact relating time with matter actually demonstrates that although it would take billions of years for light to travel to us from these stars, that in fact the light is traveling this expanse at an infinitely faster rate because of the vacuum of space. What is interesting is that the Scriptures have affirmed all along that the stars were created on the fourth day, and since then have been “lesser lights to rule the night” (Genesis 1:16). The issue becomes one of progressively emerging evidence, and the question becomes personal rather than issue-related: should one believe the newest doubt or contradiction that has developed, or the volumes from history of other similar “problems” that have been handily solved in time? Look at Isaiah 40:12 and consider how that this was written thousands of years before the “scientific” discovery of terrestrial isometrics, or even Jesus himself in Luke 12:54-55 who seemed to know quite well how to scientifically assess the weather. To be frank, the allegation that the Bible is not scientific or historical is simply untrue.
Romans 1:20 states, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” God’s existence is to be understood by the things that are made, and they send a loud message. Every aspect of creation, from the cosmos, biology, anatomy, and anthropology all point to the design of a Master Builder. With these evidences in mind, it would seem to me that other positions opposed or apart from Christianity are ones of great faith, and is difficult to sustain given the evidences. As the Scriptures say in Nehemiah 9:6, “Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” The heavenly hosts, and all aspects of creation worship the Lord God of Israel, and it is His passionate desire that we worship Him too. It is up to each person individually as to whether or not they will accept or reject this evidence.
Works Cited
Caputo, John D. “Kant’s Refutation of the Cosmological Argument.” ATLA Serials 687-88.
EBSCOhost. Web. 16 Feb. 2012
“Conservation of Angular Momentum.” Dictionary.com. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservation+of+angular+momen
tum>.
Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
other Early Christian Literature. 3rd Edition. Chicago: The U of Chicago P,
2000. Print.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: William
Benton, 1952. Print.
Dawkins, Richard. “Atheism Explained.” Humanist Association of Ottowa. Web. 13 Feb. 2012
<http://ottawa.humanists.net/lifewithoutgod/atheism.php>.
The Holy Bible. London: William Collins Publishers. Print. King James Vers.
Hovind, Kent. Part 1a The Age of the Earth. 12 April 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/old/hovind-
seminar_part1a_1998.html>.
Kinder, Sarah M. Personal Interview. 18 Feb. 2012.
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999. Print.
“Spacetime (space-time), Relativity, Quantum Gravity, and Quantum Physics.” Lifenotes.
15 Sep. 2011. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/>.
Toussaint, Stanley D. “Acts.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Ed. John F.
Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Dallas: Victor Books, 1983. 403-404. Print.
Tongues: What is it, and is it for today?
In today’s world there is a great debate concerning the issue of speaking in tongues. The major question surrounding this controversial issue is that of if it is supposed to be used today. This of course is a difficult question to answer and proclaim loudly when many people highly respect some ministers and leaders who condone and even use this gift. There is another question that isn’t talked about nearly as much but is just as important; namely, what is the gift of tongues Biblically? A case can be made using both contexts in the Scriptures and studying the word used.
In the book of Acts there are three different instances of the usage of the gift of tongues (2:1-12, 10:44-46, 19:1-7). In chapter 2, it is generally accepted and obvious that these men were either speaking in a heavenly language that everyone can understand, or that they were given the ability to speak any language as they saw fit. This usage of the gift of tongues demonstrates a precedent that many charismatics do not like to address: tongues should be understood by somebody other than the speaker and God. In chapter 10, the apostle Peter was preaching to the gentile centurion Cornelius. This is an interesting passage, because the Holy Spirit comes down on the Gentiles for the first time here. The Scriptures show that the Jews with Peter were completely astonished by the fact that the Gentiles were speaking in tongues. There is no indication in this passage what “tongues” were being spoken, or to whom they were being addressed, but simply that the Jews were astonished by it, and that these were multiple tongues and not just one. Finally, in chapter 19, the last 12 disciples of John the Baptist are converted by Paul to become Christians, and they also begin to speak in tongues. Again, there is no indication as to what tongues were being spoken. By Biblical and historical context so far, there is no reason to assume that tongues means anything except for what it most definitely meant in Acts chapter 2, other languages.
The second thing that is relevant to examine is the actual word that is used for tongues. The word in the New Testament Greek is γλῶσσα (glōssa) and is defined lexically as “the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).” This word only occurs 50 times in the New Testament, and a brief survey of the different usages can demonstrate what it can mean. Mark 7:33, 35, and Luke 16:24 show that it can mean a literal tongue, one that can be touched. Romans 3:13, 14:11, Philippians 2:11, 1 Peter 3:10, and many others show that it is something which speaks sensible languages and articulates thought. Even from Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 10:11, and 11:9 we see that γλῶσσα can mean languages or people groups of a particular language. The real controversy that charismatics cite is that of the 1 Corinthians 12-14 passages. Beginning with 12:30 where Paul asks, “do not all speak with tongues?” He implies by using μή with the indicative that he expects a negative answer. In this passage it is easy to assume that Paul meant other languages once again, because not everybody is multilingual (supernaturally or otherwise), or are able to interpret other languages. Even in 13:1, which implies that there is a language which only angels speak, Paul uses the subjunctive in a 3rd class conditional statement (Mounce’s BBG pg. 293) which means that this is an ‘if’ statement, not an ‘although’ statement that the King James Version uses. In the remaining passages in 1 Corinthians, Paul never defines the speaking in tongues as anything other than another language different from one’s native tongue. Finally, in 13:8 Paul states that this gift of languages will cease when “that which is perfect” is come. The word perfect is τέλειον (teleion), which means complete, and is a neuter word, ruling out the common belief among charismatics that the second coming of Christ (who is obviously masculine) is where the cessation of tongues is in effect. Also, the word “perfect” in the KJV, while not entirely inaccurate, can be misleading, because the word τέλειον, as described by HELPS word studies, can be better rendered as “mature (consummated) from going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal, i.e. developed into a consummating completion by fulfilling the necessary process.” This is definitely not the way anyone would picture Jesus Christ, as one who needs to develop into something.
My conclusion is simple: speaking in tongues was really exactly what is described in Acts 2, which is a speaking in other languages supernaturally. While many people are able to imitate a type of ecstatic speech in order to give off the idea that one is speaking in tongues, it is not common to see people argue that the Holy Spirit enables them to supernaturally speak in other languages. If one were to be able to speak in another language supernaturally, then I would not deny that it is what the Lord is working in and through him (for the Holy Spirit is not constrained by what gifts are “active” and “inactive”!) At the same time, I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that the Holy Spirit gives out this gift on a Church-wide basis, neither do I see any reason to assume that the charismatics who utter incoherencies have correctly “found” the gift of tongues.
The Holy Ghost: What is He Doing?
In the modern church era, perhaps one of the greatest schisms in the church with regards to practice is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost. Who is the Holy Ghost, and what is He supposed to be doing in the average believer? It is generally agreed that the Spirit is an integral part of our salvation and sanctification, but beyond that there are a plethora of differences of opinion. There may be many different theological schools of thought on this issue, but when put into practice there are really only two discernable sides. On the one hand, there are those who earnestly desire or practice all spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 14:1), and desire to be spiritually baptized into a higher spiritual plane of perfectionism and Spirit-led phenomenal works. On the other hand, there is the fundamental conservative group who believes that the Holy Spirit does a work in salvation, but is minimally involved in the Christian life after that (save for the occasional comforting and helping to discern God’s will). When people try to place too much emphasis on the Spirit, they are demoting Christ; howbeit those who try to deny the spiritual and real workings of the Spirit, they belittle His importance. I believe that the role and function of the Holy Spirit is effectively laid out in Scriptures, and that He is essential for producing spiritually good works in the lives of the believer.
Before looking at the Spirits’ ministries from a Biblical perspective, a brief synopsis of more extreme systems of doctrine concerning this issue will be examined. The former group that is more open about the works of the Holy Spirit is best defined as Pentecostals, for it was the Pentecostal Movement that drove this issue to the forefront of modern theological debates. This movement was started in the mid 1800s by the Holiness revival. This group was disillusioned by the sterilized American church, and many were lower-class people who felt ostracized from the clean and extravagant church experience. They emphasized the doctrine of perfectionism as a result of what they believed to be a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Stephens). Half a century later, a man by the name of Charles Parham started a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, teaching his students that they should pray for a receiving of the Holy Spirit similar to the Acts 2 experience. Then, on January 1, 1901, the first student began to speak in tongues, followed by about 15 other students, as well as Parham himself. This is what was called the Topeka revival, and it set the stage for more development in the movement, although in this instance the ‘Apostolic Faith’ was not spread very far. However, in 1906, a revival broke loose in Azusa Street, Los Angeles, causing the movement to spread almost virally to the rest of the United States (Azusa Street Revival 1906). One of the curious attributes of this movement was that there was a large diversity of objective theology; they seemed unified together mainly by the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Today, the Pentecostal Movement has changed somewhat in that it has systematized its theology more. However, the pillars of Pentecostalism are still the same, that the sign gifts are still universally acceptable, and that there is a necessary emphasis on the Holy Ghost, sometimes to the minimizing of other doctrines or even Persons of the Godhead.
Pentecostalism definitely has a zeal for the Lord (the alternative to this assumption I choose not to explore), but there are several critical questions that arise from such a recent movement of spiritual sign gifting. First, how does history match up with the Pentecostal Movement? Historically, there are virtually no records of sign gift activity throughout the entire lifetime of the church with the exclusion of the past 100 years or so. The Apostolic signs historically died with the Apostles, regardless of how the Scripture ought to be interpreted. So this begs the question, if it is God who distributes the spiritual gifts (Romans 12:3-4), then why did He choose not to distribute to the Church this particular controversial list of gifts for nearly 1800 years? Were there no sick to be healed, or opportunities to witness to people of other languages, or to raise people back to life for God’s glory? Also, if sign gifts are for today, then how are we supposed to interpret passages like 1 Corinthians 13:8-10? What does it mean to know in part and to prophesy in part? What is coming that is complete or perfect? It cannot be Jesus, because the Greek word τέλειον is neuter; if it were supposed to be Jesus, then a masculine word would be more appropriate (White). Finally, the difficult question must be addressed: is it really necessary to use the sign gifts? Paul says that he would rather preach five words of understanding than ten thousand in an unknown tongue (1 Corinthians 14:19). When there were sick people in the church, James did not instruct believers to find the spiritual healers to heal them, but rather he said this:
Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15)
The Lord heals the sick, but it is not necessary to have sick-healers in the church for the sick to be healed; all that is needed is fervent prayer from righteous men (v. 16).
Pentecostalism may have its problems, but the very basis of her revival movement was under the backdrop of what they perceived as a dead church in America. There are many names that can be pinned to this system of thought, but the resemblance can be closely drawn to post-Reformation Arminianism. This system of theology is not as much a specific movement or set of doctrines as it is an emphasis or a mindset. The original Arminianists were condemned in 1619 by the Synod of Dort, which strongly emphasized the essentiality of the Holy Spirit in His work and empowerment. Today Arminianism is expressed not so much by doctrinal statements as it is by practice, and so I use the term loosely in this context. It is a practice of self-reliance rather than Spirit-reliance, and emphasizes the work and ability of man to the minimizing of the Holy Spirit (Ryrie). Of course, sign gifts are positively rejected as being unusable in the modern church era.
Against this group of people are hurled a great variety of accusations. The first to throw the stone is the Pentecostal Movement who separated itself from the Arminianists on the grounds that they “play church” per se. They are seen as being sterile, organized, and man lead by programs and agendas rather than by the Spirit’s leading. They are accused of being ritualistic, and many people fear that the Spirit could leave the Church and the ritual would keep going for lack of discernment toward the Spirit’s presence. Of course, the truthfulness of these accusations is varied from church to church, as defection and apostasy is a cancer that does not exclusively plague the conservative group of Christians.
When calling into question the reasoning of Arminianism, one does not have to look far into Scripture to find problems. If the Spirit is to be minimally involved in a believer’s life, only necessary for the act of salvation, then how should John 4:23-24 be translated? Is the Holy Ghost essential to our way of life? The truth is, if one affirms that worship to God is appropriate, one must also affirm that the Spirit is essential, because whoever wants to worship God must worship Him in the Spirit. So to the Arminianists I perceive that there is greater need for warning against becoming a dead church than a rebuttal of false theology.
This issue is obviously controversial and difficult to clearly discern; however, a Biblical approach to the Holy Spirit is possible. There are many ways that the Holy Spirit is working today, and it is difficult to list them all. For unbelievers there are the restraining and convicting ministries (2 Thessalonians 2:5-8, John 16:8-9). There are five universal works of the Spirit for believers: regenerating (John 3:6-7, Ephesians 2:1, 5, note that the Father is also active in this work), indwelling (John 14:16-17), sealing (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, 2 Corinthians 1:22), baptizing (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-5), and filling (Ephesians 5:18). According to Ryrie, there are also three different passages where individual gifts are mentioned, those being Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 (423). There are at least 17 different gifts mentioned by name in these three passages, and to explain them separately is beyond the scope of this essay. Typically, most of these gifts are agreed upon by everybody to be active today; it is the small portion of sign gifts that there is such a great schism. Those sign gifts are: Apostleship, gifts of healing, working of miracles, discerning of Spirits, diverse kinds of tongues, and interpretation of tongues. Taking a deeper look into the hermeneutics of these passages, one can make some interesting observations.
Concerning the five universal works of the Spirit for believers, four of them are related to a believer’s salvation. These are immediate at salvation (Romans 6:2-7), they are permanent (Ephesians 4:30), and although they are powerful works, they are not sensational, as some may believe. For example, to be baptized by the Holy Spirit identifies someone into the body of Christ, but that does not play out in the physical world as some sort of ecstaticism. The filling of the Spirit is the one universal ministry that is dependent on man as well as on God. Ryrie concisely says of the filling of the Spirit, “If filling relates to the control of the Spirit in one’s life… then filling is related to yieldedness” (437). The filling of the Holy Spirit is indeed glorious, and even sensational, but it is also orderly. The filling of the Spirit allows the Spirit to have more direct control in the believer’s actions and life. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33). Now, concerning the gifting of the Holy Ghost, a plain interpretation of Scripture would indicate that gifts are dispensed to all believers (Romans 12:3). Gifting is always present to a believer, and is a little different from Spirit filling. Filling is about control, gifting is about ability. If this were not so, then why would Paul be encouraging believers to use their gifts properly in Romans 12? If the Holy Spirit fills a believer every time he or she wants to use a spiritual gift, then it wouldn’t be necessary to include such exhortations. This also applies to the sign gifts. The Corinthian church was abusing the gift of tongues, and that was the reason why Paul needed to mention them in 1 Corinthians 14.
In arguing about this doctrine, I would advocate for a balanced approach. There seems to be a great dilemma in the modern church. If relying only on experiences, one would not deny that the Holy Ghost has worked miracles after the similitude of the sign gifts; on the other hand, if we depend only on the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of Scripture, one cannot advocate for a widespread dispersion of sign gifts in the Church (1 Corinthians 13:8). The Bible Knowledge Commentary well states of this passage, “The gifts were temporary blessings in an imperfect age. One day they would give way to perfection, toward which all the gifts pointed” (Walvoord and Zuck 536). So the question becomes, where is the middle ground between these two claims if there is one? In order to draw a conclusion about the doctrine of the working of the Holy Spirit that is neither anti-Spirit nor pure mysticism, one must realize that the two doctrines are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Does the fact that history affirms the dying away of sign gifts mean that the Holy Ghost cannot still work in that way today if He wants to? God is not the author of confusion, so would He widely dispense these gifts to people even in light of the present schism in the Church, not to mention what his Word says about the ceasing of gifts? The answer to both of these questions is no. The Holy Ghost can do whatever He wants to do as a sovereign member of the Godhead, but normally He works in a certain way. Take into consideration the fact that nowhere in the Scripture is there an exhortation to desire the spiritual gift of super strength, but even without that divine decree the Holy Spirit still entered into Samson to give him this strength (Judges 14:6, 19, 15:14). In the same way, although the Holy Spirit has decreed that He will no longer dispense the sign gifts to believers anymore, He is not restrained from using a member of the Body of Christ for healing a person supernaturally, or from speaking another language without having learned it, or even from having an unnatural amount of physical stamina or strength.
The Holy Ghost, like the Father, is incomprehensible to man, and does not always work in the way that we think He should. The two schools of thought regarding the Holy Ghost are really just two schools of practice, where the Spirit and His power is abused in one camp, and neglected in the other. I believe that although the Holy Spirit does not gift people with sign gifts today because of the lack of the need for signs anymore, it is impossible to put a harness on the Spirit to tell Him what He can and cannot do. Indeed, all believers of all beliefs should be open and active in listening to the Spirit, so that He can work through us and in us in the ways that He wants to. Not to follow our own plans, but rather in following the divine plan of the One who graciously enables all of us with gifts that we would not be able to perform without Him.
Works Cited
“Azusa Street Revival 1906.” Bible Teaching Program. 12 December 2011 <http://bibleteachingprogram.com/hhp/hhppdf/2azusa.pdf>.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999.
Stephens, Randal J. Assessing the Roots of Pentecostalism. 12 December 2011 <http://are.as.wvu.edu/pentroot.htm>.
Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Victor Books, n.d.
White, Tim. “Mark Driscoll and “Sign” Gifts.” 26 March 2009. DrTimWhite.com. 11 December 2011 <http://drtimwhite.com/2009/03/26/temporary-sign-gifts/>.
Quick Update!
Me and the band Singlestreet just finished up our first single, and it is available for download on iTunes or CD Baby. The song is entitled “One Way” and the band is called Singlestreet, and so you should be able to find it pretty quick with those credentials. Buy it and check it out!
