In order to get the most out of what
God wants to teach you and I through the material of this and next week, we
should engage in an exercise of sorts with the Lord. In fact, regardless of
what material we study -- in a class, personal time with the Lord, at a teaching,
or wherever -- we will get NOTHING out of it if are not able to see ourselves
as God does. So tonight let's prepare our own spiritual soil for the Lord
to plant seeds by first reminding ourself of the need to be self-aware and
secondly to consider what do we expect and pursue from God.
1) Self-Awareness
Too many Christians do not take
the time to examine themselves. They examine the situation or circumstances
they are in but not their character and motives that underly and actually
drive their actions, words, attitudes, and thought-life. Do we take the
time to look deeper at ourselves? EG. - When we taught on "appropriating
our new identity" in week 3, if you found it difficult to understand
the necessity of or how to examine your self on the level
of false beliefs about your identity, then you probably need to develop
more in this area.
Socrates says, "An unexamined
life is not worth living."
We should resolve to want to
see ourselves as God does. That under grace we want him to reveal things
about us that we know under grace he will grow us through. David has
the courage to pray in Ps. 139:23,24 (read) - we should as well.
2) What do we expect
from our relationship with God? And similarly, What do we pursue in our
relationship with God?
Do we primarily follow God because we expect and pursue the benefits
to ourselves? Or to bear fruit which brings glory to God?
If we PRIMARILY expect "the blessed life" we might dabble
in God's purposes (ministry), or even do a fair amount...for a while.
But when the benefits don't come our way, we fold (EG. don't feel a
real closeness with God, don't bear fruit in leading people to Christ
or discipleship, tough circumstances in life continue, financial setbacks
still happen, relationships are still difficult to maintain).
Our expectations have been dashed upon the rocks. Do we secretly,
down deep primarily pursue God because of what we believe is in it
for us?
If we PRIMARILY are driven by a desire to bear fruit in God's purposes
then we understand that the personal benefits (growing experience of
depth with God, diminishing anxieties in areas of bad circumstances,
experience of fulfillment, etc.) will occur but what really consumes
our thinking and prayer is a desire to bring him glory by being used
by him in the Great Commission -- reaching the lost and discipling Christians.
One of the best ways to self-examine here is to ask "what do I pursue?"
Where are my energies spent?
Also, what causes me the most distress? Lack of comfort, pleasure,
& secure living, lack of close experience with God - or lack of
bearing fruit for the Lord?
Consider Paul: Look at his description of his "joy" and note
what it is inevitably associated with (Phil. 1:3-5,7; 2:2,17-18). Note
his joy is always associated with the Gospel being furthered - fruit
being born.
Our "expectations" of how God works in the life of the Christian
has a direct bearing on our susceptibility to the topic of this and next
week.
Definition of Restorationism:
A movement emphasizing the belief that God's miraculous working in the gospels,
Acts (and Corinth?) describes the normal Christian life (individually
and corporately). Restorationists therefore seek to restore today's church
to reflect that perspective.
Third wave charismatics don't normally
use "restorationism" to refer to themselves.
History: Three "waves"
of restorationism have occurred during the 20th century; all 3 are still present
today.
- Pentecostalism (started
early 20th cent.): Many believe speaking in tongues is a necessary evidence
of personal salvation (Apostolic Church) and that physical healing can
always be appropriated by faith (healing in the atonement). They tend
to be concerned about doctrine, and are somewhat sectarian.
- Charismatic Movement (started
mid 20th cent.): They believe a second act of grace of being "Spirit-filled"
or Spirit-baptized" is necessary after conversion, and tongues are
evidence of this; more focused on experience than doctrine, so it spread
through Catholic and dead, ritualistic, liberal Protestant denominations
(Episcopalians).
- "Third Wave" (started
late 20th cent.): "Signs and Wonders" movement (e.g., Vineyard);
goal is to bring the full power of the Spirit as they see him working
in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, into mainstream evangelical churches.
They don't hold to a second act of grace, tongues as evidence of salvation,
or healing in the atonement.
There is a wide range of perspectives
and practices among restorationists. We agree with their desire to restore
a New Testament style Christianity, enthusiasm for the things of God, an
expectation of God's supernatural involvement, and focus on evangelism and
missions. We disagree with some features of restorationism and find that
many in this camp have serious problems in their interpretation of scripture
and practical application of scripture. This week we will deal with scripture
interpretation and next week we will address issues of practice.
Factors Leading To Spiritual
Imbalance: If you don't know how to respond to this issue, you will
be especially vulnerable during your times of dryness, discouragement, confusion,
etc.--and you won't be able to help younger Christians who are vulnerable
in this area.
Other areas that leave us open for
imbalance: previous experiences, passivity, peer pressure, temperamental
inclinations, desiring a quick fix, reluctance to judge the validity of
someone else's spiritual experience, etc.
Therefore, while this area is doctrinally
non-essential (not heretics like Jehovah's Witnesses), it is very important
because it sets the tone of what we expect and how we define spiritual
vitality and maturity. It is not enough to teach proper view of spiritual
growth--we also need to be able to discern and reject aberrant views!
"Hermeneutics" is the study
of interpretation of the Bible.
1. Miracles
are not normative in biblical history.
How frequent are miracles in the
Bible? Christians commonly assume that people living in biblical times
experienced overt miracles as a normal state of affairs. But this is not
the case. When we look at the entire biblical record (which covers over
2200 years), we discover that there are a few periods of concentrated miraculous
activity. These periods usually correspond to crucial junctures in God's
redemptive plan (e.g., Abraham; the Exodus & Conquest; Elijah &
Elishah; Jesus & the Apostles; the end of the age).
The Old Testament psalmists frequently
look back on the Exodus as special because of the outpouring of miracles
(Psalm 105:27ff), and Old Testament prophets look forward to the coming
of Messiah as a period of special miraculous activity (see Isa. 35,61).
This clearly implies that they were not experiencing a lot of miraculous
activity in their own days.
"The popular notion
that Bible abounds with miracles, so that they are present on practically
every page, is refuted by a simple reading of the Scriptures. As Sir Robert
Anderson showed in his volume The Silence of God, miracles have generally
occurred in periods, the great ones being the creation, the exodus, the
age of Elijah and Elisha, the time of Daniel, and the days of Christ and
the apostles. That we should be living in a period of the silence of God
(so far as miracle is concerned) should not trouble us unduly, seeing there
have been other times when this was true."
Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Co.:1997), p. 112.
2.
Biblical descriptions of miracles are not prescriptions for
all Christians to do.
Define the difference between descriptive
and prescriptive biblical text.
Restorationists see the New Testament
narrative (gospels and Acts) as a paradigm for normal Christianity. Since
these passages seemingly describe frequent miracles, they conclude that
signs and wonders should be normative for spiritual Christians.
But this is improper interpretation,
because there are unique features in these accounts that should
not be factored into our general conclusions about spirituality (see
below). Instead, we should look primarily to the didactic (teaching) portions
of the New Testament which refer to all Christians.
There are many things described in
the Bible that we don't feel compelled to imitate (dress, diet, Paul cutting
his hair to take a nazarite vow, the apostles' lifestyle as itinerant missionaries,
Paul's celibacy, Peter striking Ananias and Saphria dead, Paul striking
Elymas blind).
How, then, do we decide what examples
we should follow?
(Stott) "What is described in Scripture as having
happened to others is not necessarily intended for us, whereas
what is promised to us we should appropriate, and what is commanded us
we are to obey . . . What is descriptive is valuable
(in determining what God intends for all Christians) only in so far as
it is interpreted by what is didactic . . . We
must derive our standards of belief and behavior from the teaching of
the New Testament . . . rather than from the
practices and experiences which it portrays." (John R. W. Stott,
Baptism and Fullness (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1975),
pp. 15-17).
"Didactic" (same as prescriptive)
is from the Greek word didaskos in the Bible, translated: "teach",
"preach", etc. - it is text which teaches what we should do,
not text which describes what happened. Webster's College Dictionary
defines it as "intended for instruction". You can see
this form of Biblical text would have a very different intent and obligation
to the reader, than text that simply describes what was occurring.
The main body of material for the
didactic would be the epistles written to whole churches or groups of
churches. It would also include those portions of Jesus' teaching which
concern the church, the apostles' teaching in Acts, and most of the pastoral
epistles.
The point: we interpret
the descriptive in light of the prescriptive. Maxim: We
interpret the descriptions in the Gospels and Acts in light of what the
epistles teach.
And what do the Epistles emphasize?
We discover that signs and wonders are neither prescribed (instructed
to do) nor emphasized. Rather, the emphasis is on spiritual maturity defined
as doctrinal fidelity, biblical love, and moral transformation--through
walking in the Spirit. This is the way God has designed the sanctification
process according to the New Testament.
"If miracles aren't normative,
why are they so prevalent in the gospels and Acts?"...
3.
God used many miracles for unique reasons in the Gospels.
Jesus was the Messiah, and therefore
he did some special things! Certainly we cannot make everything he said
and did the norm for all Christians! There were at least two reasons for
Jesus' miracles:
- Evidence for his identity: His
miracle ministry was one fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Mt.
11:3-5). He cited his unique miracle ministry as one of the lines of
evidence for his Messiahship (Matt. 11:3-5; Jn. 5:36; 10:37,38).
- Illustrated and validated Jesus'
claims: They were also "signs" (sumeia) that revealed
his identity (when explained by his words). In other words, his miracles
were preceded or followed by teaching in which he explained his unique
spiritual provision for people (5OOO FED >> "I AM THE BREAD
OF LIFE;" PARALYTIC HEALED >> "I HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO FORGIVE SINS;" RAISED LAZARUS >> "I AM THE RESURRECTION
& THE LIFE"; HEALS BLIND MAN >> "I AM THE LIGHT
OF THE WORLD")
The point is: Because Jesus was
the unique Messiah, we would expect him to do unique miracles. Even then,
the miracles did not take center stage, but drew people to the truth of
the message. . .
"Once again the wrong inference
must not be drawn. The point is not that signs and wonders are inevitably
bad, but that they are never of first importance." (D.A. Carson,
"Power Religion" ed. by Michael Horton (Chicago: Moody Press,
1992) p. 98.
"What about Jn. 14:12? Doesn't
Jesus promise that all Christians should be able to do the same kinds
of miracles--and more of them?"
(John 14:12) "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes
in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than
these shall he do; because I go to the Father.
- Greater in number
(D. A. Carson) This promise
was evidently spoken to all Christians ("he who believes in
me"). The term "greater" evidently refers not to
qualitatively greater miracles (how could you do something greater
than raising people from the dead?), but quantitatively greater.
Whereas Jesus was limited to one body and a three year ministry,
the body of Christ is composed of many people over a long period
of time. So, Jesus predicts that the church (by the power of the
Holy Spirit) will do even more miracles than Jesus did. "Might
'greater' mean 'more numerous' or 'more widely dispersed?' In that
sense, Christians have indeed done 'greater' things than Jesus did.
We have preached all over the world, seen millions of men and women
converted, dispensed aid, education, and food to still more millions.
The 'greater' works may therefore be the gathering of converts into
the church through the witness of the disciples (cf. 17:20; 20:29),
and the overflow of kindness that stems from transformed lives."
(D. A. Carson, The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus
[Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980], p. 41.)
4.
God used many miracles for unique reasons in Acts.
Like the miracles performed by Jesus
in the gospels, the miracles we read about in Acts are performed by unique
people (the Apostles) during a unique time (the beginning of the church).
- The Apostles were unique in certain
important ways:
a. They were authorized to write
scripture (see Matthew 10:40; John 14:26; 15:26,27; 16:13)
b. They were authorized to perform
miracles like Jesus' to validate their message
2 Cor. 12:12* The
signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance,
by signs and wonders and miracles.
Heb. 2:1-4 For this reason we must pay much closer
attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. (2) For
if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression
and disobedience received a just recompense, (3) how shall we escape
if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken
through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, (4) God
also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various
miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.
c. There are no apostles today in the sense of Christ's authorized Apostles.
"But there are probably
apostles today." Probably not. The New Testament says that
witnessing the resurrected Christ was a requirement for being an Apostle
(1 Cor. 9:1; Acts 1:22). Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:8 that he was the "last
of all" to witness the resurrected Christ. Therefore, there are
no more Apostles after Paul.
The New Testament seems to make
a distinction between "Apostles" and "apostles."
"Apostles" are the ones described above and ended in the first
century (contra Roman Catholic doctrine of papal authority through Apostolic
succession). Small "a" "apostles" is used more generically
to describe appointed messengers (2 Cor. 8:23 "messengers")
or perhaps itinerant church-planters (Rom. 16:7).
Important Qualification:
One need not conclude from this that God never performs miracles through
the church today, but one would conclude that such working is probably
not as frequent as it was during Jesus' and the Apostles' ministries.
- Acts describes a unique period
in history. Acts was a transitional stage from the Old to the New Covenant--and
therefore a unique period in church history, never again to be repeated.
This explains why there was a delay in some cases between people believing
and receiving the Holy Spirit, and why tongues were used in a special
way. Therefore, it is a mistake to claim (as some restorationists do)
that these two phenomena (receiving the Holy Spirit at a separate moment
from conversion and speaking in tongues) should be normative for the church
today. NOTE: There is more to the tongues issue, and we will address it
soon.
First of all, remember that
we should interpret descriptive in light of didactic passages. Paul
makes it clear that the norm is for Christians to receive the Spirit
at the moment of belief (Eph. 1:13,14). He also makes it clear that
while all Christians have been baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13),
not all Christians speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30).
Also bear in mind that apart
from these passages, there is no evidence that the thousands of other
converts in Acts spoke in tongues or experienced a delay between belief
and receiving the Holy Spirit.
With this in view, how might we
understand the deviation from the norm in Acts 2,8,10,19**?
Acts 2:1-12
There was delay between believing
in Christ and receiving the Spirit, because they were Old Covenant
believers and the New Covenant didn't start until Pentecost.
Tongues given to validate Jesus'
promise (Acts 1:5), to provide with preaching opportunity and (for
later reference) to prove that non-Jewish believers were now equal
members of God's people.
Acts 8:14-24
Delay either because Peter
had "keys of the kingdom" (Matt. 16:18,19), or to prevent
a Samaritan Christian faction by consolidating the apostles' authority.
Tongues (maybe) to show that
Samaritan believers were equally saved.
Acts 10:44-46
No delay.
Tongues to prove that Gentile
believers were equally saved (Acts 11:15-18).
Acts 19:1-7
Delay because they were Old
Covenant believers.
Tongues probably to prove to
them that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and to confirm Paul's apostolic
authority.
Therefore, while there is no evidence
that the gift of tongues has been withdrawn (see below), it is unbiblical
to teach that we must speak in tongues to be saved (old line Pentecostalism)
or to be Spirit-filled (charismatics and more recent pentacostals).
It is also unbiblical to assume
that there is normally a delay between belief in the gospel and receiving
the Holy Spirit.
Summary of the Acts accounts:
(D. A. Carson) "Acts provides
not a paradigm for individual Christian experience, but the account of
the gospel's outward movement, geographically, racially, and above all
theologically." (D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, p. 150.)
Luke was narrating a "highlights
film" of a unique period in church history led by unique spokesmen.
His purpose was to narrate the expansion of the gospel in fulfillment
of Acts 1:8. There is no evidence that Luke intended his record to serve
as a paradigm for all churches or individuals, because we do not see some
of the extraordinary events and practices described in Acts (e.g. Acts
19:11,12) reiterated in the epistles. However, the early church as described
in Acts does serve as a model for us in whatever areas are also mandated
in the didactic portions of the New Testament (e.g., evangelism and
missions; prayer; sacrificial giving; etc.).
2 Cor. 12:12* - the apostles
were uniquely authorized to perform signs and wonders and miracles
Acts 2,8,10,19** - instances of
delay between belief in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit; also instances of speaking
in tongues
