When the Voice Heard Isn't Jesus

Jesus tells us in John 10:26-27 that those who believe in him also perceive communication, or as I've styled it, impressions, from him. They not only "hear" those impressions, they also respond to them, and as a result, they end up walking with Jesus. Being a believer is to hear Jesus and to walk with him as a result. Such a construct, unfortunately, involves a good bit of subjectivity. 

Like anything sensible and perceptual there’s a lot of individuality in it, and there’s danger in the inexactness of this kind of thing. A person might misperceive what was actually sent; we might receive something not sent from Jesus at all; we might even lose an impression in noise. Yet, there's no question, it’s beyond a shadow of doubt, that believers receiving impressions from Jesus is God’s very will for us. Jesus said in no uncertain terms, his sheep hear his voice.

We sense impressions. Maybe they’re communication from the Good Shepherd, maybe they're not.

That being the case, we have to wonder: how can a believer tell when an impression isn't Jesus? That's a super important question. Toward finding the answer to that query we’re going to run through a list of content types which impressions can bear, but which would mark that communication as not actually from Jesus. This is the Cull List that identifies that it’s not Jesus we’re hearing from.

We’ll start with what we can identify from the temptations of Jesus as found in Matthew 4:1-10.

Fiat. To act by will instead of by wait. 
An inclination stirred by a suspected impression to make something happen in your time instead of God’s time. This is either a misapprehension of something from God or something not from God at all (think, Abraham & Sarah's fiat producing Ishmael)

Folly. To test God's response.
An impression to throw caution to the wind, to presume upon the Word’s promise, and take an irreversible dive-- jumping just to see if he catches you-- isn’t from God. It’s merely folly, not the Shepherd.

Fame & Fortune. To aspire to wealth, power and notoriety.
An impression to aspire to or suggesting that we deserve fame and fortune isn’t from God. Such a sensation certainly isn’t from humble Jesus who called us to be the servant of all.

Moving on to the wisdom of Hebrews 2:15...

Fear. To be anxious about dying and facing eternal punishment.

An impression that calls into question a believer's status, given the sacrifice of Christ, is not from Jesus. Such conviction may come from the Holy Spirit to the unbeliever, but it won't come from God to the one already believing. Such an impression is out and out from the Devil.

And on to James 1:19-20 and Ephesians 4:26...

Fury. To give place to wrath.

If an impression entices you to fury, if it feeds the anger monster, that is not Jesus. We're not speaking of a minor annoyance here, but of a chain reaction of anger that leads to a nuclear explosion. An impression that lights this fuse could be your flesh, it could be the devil, but it isn’t God.

From Colossians 3:2a,5...

Fixation.  
An impression that coalesces our attention into an obsessive focus on something other than Christ is not from Jesus. We are to set, or fix our eyes on Jesus (Hebrews 12:2) and to set our minds on things above, an impression to do otherwise is not the voice of God.

Some spiritual sensations are not the voice of Jesus, our shepherd.

That sort can be discounted, even discarded as being counterfeit. The Word of God makes us wise so that we can discern the difference and don’t end up lost in the weeds chasing butterflies. Any impression along the lines above is not from the Shepherd and should be dismissed. Despite the possible drawbacks, God’s word to us is that believers will experience the voice of Jesus. We ought to discerningly listen.

Hearing the Voice of Jesus

Can Christians expect to experience communication from Christ?

John 10:26-27, I think, leaves no doubt on the subject. Jesus said directly, without any ambiguity, that those who believe are his sheep, and those sheep can and do hear his voice.

Hearing the Voice of the Shepherd

Christ's statement should preclude any problems with the concept, but a decent portion of the church has been laboring for centuries (since the Reformation anyhow) under an erroneous teaching that claims that believers cannot and should not expect to hear Jesus' voice. That thought arises from an overextension of “Sola Scriptura,” positing that we have the written word and that is the only communication we need. Of course, that leaves countless numbers living before Gutenberg and all the believers living in non-literate cultures with no "voice" at all.

Justin Peters, famous for his "discernment ministry," has quipped “If you want to hear from God, read your Bible. If you want to hear Him audibly, read it out loud." Clever perhaps, but merely fencing with a straw man, for Jesus wasn’t referring to an actual audible voice anymore than believers are actual sheep. Believers who say they want to hear from God are not looking for an audible voice, at least not the vast majority, rather they're looking for an experience of spiritual communication. So Peters’ quip is just silliness.

Jesus did not say that his sheep understand the Bible, even through Holy Spirit illumination, but that they hear his voice. Although it is true that the word used for "hear" (ἀκούουσιν) can mean understand, its combination with the word "voice" (φωνῆς) in the phrase makes it clear that a sensory experience was in view by Christ. This was not a statement about the Bible, it was a statement about an experience. Since "hear" was in the indicative active, I take the force of this as meaning that if it is now, his sheep are hearing his voice.

Jesus referred to the natural, physical experience of hearing in real time to describe what would have to be the supernatural, spiritual experience of perceiving him communicating to believers in real time. The conclusion, it seems to me, is that Jesus has a way of affecting those that believe in him sensorially, and those believers have a way of understanding those impressions and responding to such. Should we expect to experience Jesus communicating with us? Absolutely!

It is clear that Jesus was NOT talking about his sheep getting something out of the Bible, though they absolutely do, but of experiencing him communicating to us.

Definitionally, at least according to Jesus, a believer is someone whom Jesus is communicating with, and who discerning that communication as from Christ, acts upon it by accompanying him. English texts generally translate the Greek verb (ἀκολουθοῦσίν) as, “follow” rather than "accompany," as they do in just about every instance of this word in the Greek New Testament. Does that matter? It could.

When we think of the word follow, we don’t think of “accompany.” We think of something more akin to baby ducklings following their mama, or rats following the Pied Piper. Is that what Jesus meant? No! A Greek lexicon readily demonstrates the nuanced point: he meant that those hearing believers came to and hung out with him-- going where he went, doing as he did. It's the very picture of his disciples, whom Jesus called "friends" rather than mere followers.

Being a believer is being sensitive to the impression of Jesus' communication and responding to it by walking with him in it.

It means hearing his voice. Does that describe you?

Ways the Voice of Jesus Impresses Us

I think the bottom line of John 10:27 is clear: believers will be guided by sensible impressions from the Lord. Really, there's nothing new in that, God had been impressing people for as long as people had been around. Of course, that kind of thing wasn't widespread before Christ came, only a small, exclusive company ever had the privilege of hearing God's voice. The new thing since Christ came is that Jesus put this "hearing from God" in inclusive terms-- every believer will hear.

In other words, Jesus gave a new definition to the word “believer.” Jesus said that if one is a believer in Christ, that one will receive the guidance of impressions from Jesus and would follow after him as a result. So how do we experience these impressions so we can follow? There is no way to touch on all the possibilities, so let me give but a few examples, just so we get the idea.

Nudges: good shepherds know how to talk using a staff. The staff of our Shepherd is felt via unshakable, strengthening convictions. In these situations we just know we’re not supposed to go that way, but this. Like Paul being prevented from preaching in Asia.

Dawnings: sometimes the voice is a sudden awareness or understanding rising up within us. Like Peter’s confession of Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Stirrings: the voice can cause a flutter or burning of heart. Like the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Revelations: the voice can drop sudden knowledge into our awareness of what one would not know otherwise as it did for Paul on a ship bound to sink.

Visions: the voice can be communicated in the midst of a vision as in Acts 9:10-12; 10:10-20; & 18:9-10.

Visitations: like Christ to the upper room or on the road to Damascus.

There are those who don’t believe in such things anymore. They are doomed to live spiritually parsimonious lives not knowing their very nature as believers promises so much more. Those who do believe the Good Shepherd still leads by impressing his voice upon the believer so they can follow find companionship walking with the Lord.

On a cautious note, there are some issues. The individual's subjectivity and credulity can lead to hearing the voice in what isn't. 

Faith In the Authority of Christ

The central core of Christian faith is it's understanding of Jesus-- in particular, its understanding of his authority. Jesus is recorded asking people, "Do you believe I can do this?" Believers recognized his authority, whereas unbelievers disdainfully asked him, "By what authority do you do this?" That range of opinion represents a nice metric for which to measure the concept of effective faith. 

So what does it take for faith to be effective? The moment effective faith comes into existence is explored in other blog offerings on this site. With this article I approach the subject from a different tack and offer the following postulates, which I believe characterize true faith and which I believe faith must exhibit in order to be effective. In other words, they limn out what is means to believe in Jesus in a way that counts.

1) Effective faith perceives Jesus as the Lord (i.e. the ultimate authority in one's life)
2) Effective faith sees all authority in heaven and earth as given to Jesus
3) Effective faith recognizes that the name of Jesus represents the highest authority
4) Effective faith accepts Jesus' word as enduring in it's authority.

Whether we are talking about salvation or about miracles, faith that produces the desired end is faith that fully embraces the authority of Christ.

By the authority Christ granted to them to use, the apostles healed the sick and cast out demons. When they were shaky about that authority, they couldn't cast out a demon and were rebuked for a lack of faith. By that authority Peter walked upon the water, but when Peter became fuzzy about it he sank into the waves. Apprehending the authority of Christ is the difference between praying hopefully and commanding forcefully.

I wish clarity regarding this was my constant experience, but alas, it isn't. There are moments when the authority of Christ is so clear to me, and at those moments, awesome things happen. Then there are those moments when it's only theory in my head, which I assent to readily, but it's not singular or instant. I have to think about it before its crystal clear. The difference between one and the other is command and request, knowing and hoping.

I wish faith wasn't so elusive. 

Would any of us even break through to effective faith if it wasn't for the Spirit's inspiration? In regard to salvation the answer is any easy "no!" In regard to the miraculous, it's little more complex. By God's design, however, the task of believing in either regard is ours. Jesus died in our place, but God won't believe in our place, we have to. That is what makes faith so slippery. 

God has no doubts about who's in charge. When we're certain as well, our experience erupts into a faith moment. Could you do with more faith moments where you're crystal clear, instantly, about the authority of Christ? I know I sure could. Trees would be flying! But while they remain anchored to the soil, the only real question that matters is, "Who's the boss?" Faith answers, "Jesus Christ."

The Faith Moment: Salvation

How does faith congeal in the soul to become substance? 

I do not believe that God secretly presses a button he's concealed within us, which when pressed, makes us people of persevering faith. As I understand it, that is precisely what Calvinism proposes. The problem with that is that if God did do that kind of thing for any person, he'd do it for all people. Scriptures are clear that is not the way things turn out, so Calvinism's view of efficacious grace cannot be consistent with the self-revelation of God in them. 

God has made mankind with the capacity for faith, of that there can be little doubt, for people everywhere trust in things they cannot see. I think this general capacity is what separates mankind from angels, particularly in regard to redeemability. Mankind was made in innocence, really ignorance, and therefore was made for faith. Faith exists in that gap produced by unseens and unknowns, but Angels were made for knowledge and sight. 

When angels rebelled they did so in knowledge and sight and are irredeemable as a result (see Hebrews 6:4a for the concept as it applies to mankind). If Romans 12:3 applies broadly to all humanity (as I've always taken it to mean) rather than just the church (as Calvinists in particular take it), then God has in fact dealt each person at least some measure of faith. Of course, true faith, faith that actually has an effect, requires that it be placed in the right object, namely, God and God alone. That means that God has to "show up" for that faith to spark into existence.

God "showing up" is that enablement without which no one could truly believe. But God, regardless of what help he gives us, isn't going to believe for us (which is what irresistible grace is tantamount to in my mind). All of his commands to us to believe would be nonsensical in that case. No, it is we who must trust in God, that is our God-enabled responsibility.  

We are called to faith, it is the very currency of heaven. On their own, humans can only answer that call with something less than true faith in the actual God. However, when the Holy Spirit brings our focus on the person and authority of Christ into clarity, the moment is ripe for salvivic faith to be born. It is not guaranteed, as is attested to by Israel's example and the fact that not everyone comes to faith since Jesus was lifted up on the cross, but is only possible then and impossible otherwise.

Nonetheless, thank God that the Holy Spirit is sent to bring us to that moment--the faith moment, when everything comes together and Jesus is seen as Savior and Lord.

Stirred not Shaken

What would it take for you to act upon an impression that you thought might be the Holy Spirit? If absolute certainty is your threshold, you will never move upon any inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Even if your condition to act is merely that you have to apply thoughtful consideration before acting (that seems wise, right?), anything that is of an urgent nature, i.e. that requires an immediate response, will never be done either. We can easily undermine our experience of things spiritual and miraculous in the name of caution and prudence. 

Things of the Spirit (pneumatikos) are anything but certain. According to Christ, it takes faith to cast out demons, heal the sick, and move mountains. In the realm of things the Spirit inspires, there is a gap between what is and what could be that only faith can fill. If we are not willing to strike out in faith on the basis of an inspiration, call it a holy hunch, we will never experience the kinds of supernatural things that are mentioned throughout the New Testament.

Substituting our judgment for the Holy Spirit's is not prudence or wisdom, nor is it faithful--what it is, is a surefire way to quench the Holy Spirit and live a life without the miraculous.

It is a misapprehension to think that a lightning bolt from heaven would strike (or something nigh unto it) if you were meant to heal the sick, or speak a prophetic word, or exercise power against an unclean spirit. Not many, if any, of us are ever going to experience anything like that! Jesus didn't experience that, Peter didn't experience that, and Paul didn't experience that. Elijah learned the hard way not to expect to. 

We need sensitivity to the intimate voice of God within us to catch the stirring of the Spirit.

When God's whisper falls on our "ear", we have to act in faith or we'll miss the opportunity to do a greater work. If that happens, something Jesus went to the cross and ascended into heaven to make possible ends up being missed entirely. We are not meant to live satisfied with the Cessationist's paltry gospel, which is little more than an academic exercise in criticism, history and philosophy that devolves into endless debates over the meanings of words. What we are called to be is powerful witnesses of Christ to the world after that the Holy Spirit comes upon us. 

The Holy Spirit has a way of making himself heard to the hearing ear. To those that have one, much more will be given. To those who turn a deaf ear to God the Spirit, what could have been theirs is lost, like a fruitful field of grain that went unharvested. We're partnered with God, someone we can absolutely trust. When that hunch that might be the Holy Spirit stirs within, we must take faith in hand and act or we'll lose the opportunity.

James Bond, despite his iconic instruction concerning his taste in spirits, would be dead wrong in the realm of the Spirit: it's always better to be stirred, not shaken.

I Was in the Spirit

John uses the expression, "I was in the Spirit" twice in the Apocalypse. Once at 1:10, and once at 4:2. That he was referring to the same state of experience both times could hardly be argued against. What that state was we are about to explore, though it is not explicitly developed in the text. The sort of thing it results in, on the other hand, was explicitly demonstrated throughout the Revelation.

In both instances, the phrases are exactly the same in Koine. On their face, they refer to a locus in or among the Spirit. In the way that one can be "in the wind" or even "in the sun", the Apostle John was in the Spirit. What he is communicating by this was that he was experiencing a pointed (and I would say virtually tangible) consciousness of the divine presence.

This was not John's common or moment-to-moment experience of the Spirit. There are clear enough references to the inception of the experience in both occurrences. In the first usage, this something special happened to occur one Sunday on Patmos. In the second usage, the condition was initiated immediately upon hearing the voice beckoning him to heaven. In both cases, it seems clear that the experience as recorded represented a change from what was going on before.

The word used [ginomai] to describe the existence of John's state packs within it the idea of "becoming" rather than simply being. In other words, John emerged into this state (really, was born into it) at the moment in reference. It is not described in trance-like terms, though the word "ecstasy" is often bandied about while commenting on it. It is ridiculous to do so in my mind, for John betrays no rapture, no enthusiasm, no exhilaration nor any euphoria in conjunction with this experience. Really, there is nothing but matter-of-fact reportage associated with it.

More than anything else the state of being in the Spirit, at least from the accounts of John's being so, is about awareness of the very presence of God--not theoretically, not by faith, but in actuality. If we can generalize from John's experience to any of our's (and I think we can), being in the Spirit is like having a light go on in the dark which suddenly reveals things one would otherwise be unaware of. Those things could be revelations regarding heaven or earth or about the activity of God in a moment past, present or future.

If there is anything precedential or paradigmatic about John's experience, I think it can be said in regard to its application to us, that coming to be in the Spirit (really, acting on charismatic distinctives) is about coming to an acute awareness of God's immediate presence and what he is up to. As a result of that awareness prophecy, or healings, or works of power, or miracles are then manifested in this world. Those manifestations do not break into existence because someone exercised enough faith to produce them, but because someone had come to be in the Holy Spirit.

Never Be Ashamed of God's Testimony

Christianity is predicated upon the belief that a dead guy rose, unaided, from the dead on the third day after buying the farm. That is the most ridiculous, patently absurd, demonstrably false (the dead have never risen unaided, before or since) event ever to have supposedly occurred in history. And yet myself, and every other true Christian who has ever lived believe it to be absolute truth--historically, physically, bodily. I cannot wrap my mind around people buying into this basic fundamental of Christianity, but then balking at some of the surrounding issues or other repercussions of the faith.

For instance: why would someone actually believe in Christ, but then balk at the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures? Jesus, the one whom they believe rose from the dead and then ascended to the height of all power, believed the Old Testament lock, stock and barrel. If one is basing their confidence in life and in life hereafter on the more than unlikely occurrence of this credulous guy rising from the dead, why so much as blink at inerrancy? To believe in the former while not believing the latter seems, minimally, inconsistent.

The same can be said concerning creation and evolution. Jesus believed in Adam and Eve and Noah's flood (and for that matter, Jonah's fish)--he cited their occurrences as factual back-up in his public disputations and teachings. How can one embrace the outrageousness of the gospel, but then hedge when it comes to instantaneous creation of kinds and Noah's flood (or any of the supernatural interventions of the Old Testament)? I truly cannot apprehend someone believing in Christ for salvation and simultaneously believing in evolution. It's a case of trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

What motivates those who believe in Christ but hesitate at believing in what Christ believed? Perhaps they bow down at the altar of their own intellects, all too willing to cede authority to human reasoning rather than Jesus' testimony. Maybe they would be embarrassed to believe such things and are unwilling to be thought a fool for Christ. It could be that they are merely ashamed of Christ before men. Regardless, what they need to remember is that Christ's resurrection is true or false with no shades of color in between, and if you're in it for a penny, you're in for a pound.

Come on, pick a side, make up your mind. It's not rocket science that gets anyone to eternal bliss in the hereafter with God, but Christ. You who believe in Christ, stop catering to the unbelieving and to your natural mind. The only good side that anyone needs to be on is the good side of Christ! He who is not with him is against him, so go "all in" for Jesus and stop hedging your bets. Never be ashamed of God's testimony.

Only Jesus Lives

Only God lives. Nothing else has this quality in and of itself. Everything other than God borrows its derivative existence from him, regardless of whether it may be animate or inanimate. Therefore, no being other than God has any claim to personal life (i.e a right to live) or personal rights (i.e. it's my life, I can do with it as I want). We have not made ourselves and we do not exist by and of independent animus.

In the grand scheme of things, only that which is precisely within God's will, that is in agreement in thought and deed with him, can possibly live. If anything in opposition to him had the ability to maintain itself in such, that would prove that evil was actually in God, since ultimately only God is. That which is in opposition to God, cannot do so eternally, but only temporarily and only because there is purpose in it for a season. Evil is a vanishing mist.

Among those in flesh and bones, only Jesus lived precisely in God's will. He never strayed from that line, and never will. It is his chief demonstration of divinity, and it is backed-up by his resurrection from the dead. So among those in flesh and bones, only Jesus has life and knows how to live.

For any other being made in the image of God, life can only exist in being in Jesus. This "being in Jesus" is not merely a positional or theoretical conception, but an actual and active participation in his Spirit. The one in Jesus is recast in his image, and thereafter walks as he walks. His atonement may have been the means of getting a sinner out of death, but only living and walking in him, like him, can sustain life.

As Jesus is flesh and bones with the person of God dwelling in him, those that will live are flesh and bones with God's Spirit living in them. As he, humbled in the form of flesh, lived agreeably with his heavenly Father, so to will those that live walk humbly in their flesh agreeably with the Spirit of God. To have Jesus within is to live, to be without Jesus is death, because only Jesus lives.

Entropy, Zombies, and Eternal Life

en·tro·py  

  [en-truh-pee]  Show IPA

noun

1) In Thermodynamics:
   a. on a macroscopic scale, a function of thermodynamic variables, such as temperature, pressure, or composition that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
   b. in statistical mechanics, a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S
2) In Data Transmission and Information Theory: a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3) In Cosmology: a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (i.e. heat death).
4) a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

Entropy is a death principle. On a large enough scale, everything is winding down and does not have the ability to wind itself back up. The spring is springing and eventually will be sprung, for nothing in all of creation can reset itself to what it was before. Something would always be lost in the effort. Even if it could "come back to life" it would be less than life--zombie life, only a shadow of its former self.

The classic proof of First Cause is true: the caused cannot cause itself. Therefore, to observe, not only the self-initiated return to a former state, but an improvement in that state is an evidence of something truly supernatural. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is such a circumstance. Not only did he come back from death, he came back better--more powerful and not subject to death again.

One could dismiss such an occurrence because he or she was not there to see it. But for those who cannot shake eyewitness testimony, nor the need to explain the rise of Christianity in a hostile, pagan world, Christ's entropy-defying defeat of death and his return, not to zombie life but to eternal life, becomes the central event in human existence. Even more than that, it becomes the window to heaven and the gate to eternal life. Open up the shade and crack open the door, the world may offer zombiism at best, but light and life await you in Christ.

Biblical Christianity is Inherently Mystical

Christianity is often analyzed as if it were an issue of philosophy, history or sociology. Some aspects of its doctrine, ecclesiology, or development are subject to such treatment, but it should be realized that such treatment can never actually touch the heart of what it truly is. That is because Christianity, at its core, is not about what a person assents to, what those assenting do together, or what impact they have on society and history. Christianity, at its core, is about what a person experiences in his or her soul.

Biblical Christianity, as practiced by the individual, is inherently mystical. And just so we're on the same page, let me define "mystical" as I am using it in this context. Mystical means that something is experienced, rather than merely known, but which does not have a seen or necessarily understandable genesis or impetus. By that definition, common aspects of Christianity are readily seen as mystical: conviction, faith, call, inspiration, grace all fit the bill.

Take a look at some passages of the Bible:
John 16:7-15                                    
John 6:44-47                                   
John 3:3-8                                    
Romans 12:3
Romans 14:17
Romans 8:3-17
1 Corinthians 2:10-15
1 Corinthians 12:1-13
Galatians 3:2-5
Galatians 5:4-6; 16-25
Ephesians 3:1-19

Anyone who truly believes that Jesus is the Son of God is by definition a mystic. Anyone who believes that they are born again is a mystic. Anyone who believes that God's Spirit enables them to do anything is a mystic. Anyone who believes that they experience the presence of God and have companionship with him is a mystic. Anyone practicing in real life what the Bible describes as life in Christ is a mystic.

Embrace the mystical foundation of Christianity. Christianity cannot be reduced to writing on paper, or even stone. It's written on the heart by God--it is inherently mystical. Do yourself a favor and let your inner mystic out.

The Insufficiency of the Word

I knew cessationist, who, in the name of the sufficiency of scripture, promoted a practice of Christianity that doesn't really resemble what is described in those pages at all. The Word to him is like a book of charts, which by careful use of a trained intellect and skill, can be used to navigate the course of one's life into the will of God. Never does he have a conviction, an inspiration, never a check, a nudge, and certainly never a revelation--he has his mind, the determination of his belief, and a map.

In light of his deterministic outlook, I suppose it doesn't make sense to worry about this, but I cannot see how the concept of regeneration he holds Calvinistically can be consistent with such a view. Regeneration, according to his view (and mine as well for that matter), is necessary, foundational and completely, solely the purview of the Holy Spirit. One would think that something established on the basis of the Holy Spirit communicating something into the human soul would be open to other things being communicated as well, building, as it were, upon the foundation of experience the Holy Spirit laid in regeneration.

But no, apparently something started by the Spirit can be carried on by foreseen and manipulated human effort, at least that is what it appears like to me. Let God stay in the heavens, we have the Scriptures and they are sufficient! But those same scriptures describe the Holy Spirit interactively making what is described in them possible for us to experience. It seems to me that is their point, for instance, note the following passages: Matthew 13:9-17, 1 Corinthians 2, John 15:26-16:15, Galatians 5:13-25, 1 Corinthians 12:13-31.

The Word truly is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice. But, whereas the Word is sufficient to describe the kind of things Christians can and should do and believe, the Word can never substitute for the experience of the things it describes. It's not enough to talk about spiritual matters, we need to experience the life of the Spirit. In saying that, I am not suggesting that the Word is not important, I merely am saying that we need to understand its importance rightly.

It is not the hearers of the Word that are blessed, but its doers! That is those who experience what it talks about. The Word is there to tell us what we will and can experience in Christ if we believe. We need to act on what we read, AND we need the Holy Spirit communicating his goodness, desire and power into our being so we can. With the scriptures' encouragement, may we, with freedom and boldness, endeavor to do the things described in the book and to do them as led by the Spirit.

Miracles Among the Masses: Faith

If authority isn't the telling issue in the manifesting of miracles, what is? To say, "faith," as if that alone was it would be inaccurate, although faith is very important in the scheme of things. There are recorded incidents of God producing miracles when no faith was present nor was any ensuing. God, of course, can do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants, with whom and to whom he wants; but he doesn't act purposelessly in the manifesting miracles. It seems to me, what could be called ministering miracles, occur at the nexus of three things: 1) faith in the doer, 2) faith in the receiver, and 3) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Though God is the ultimate performer of the miraculous, if the human agent does not have faith, the likelihood is that the miraculous will not occur. The faith necessary is the kind that has no doubts concerning the thing about to be done: doubt is the underminer of divine intervention. I think that is a hard thing for humans in general to produce, thankfully for God's glory, there is a gracious enablement that can accompany the need for the miracle. That is not to say that we do not have power over our own belief, so if we slough off counting on God to bail us out of our unbelief, we're likely to face disappointment.

If the receiver does not have some measure of faith, the likelihood of a miracle is next to nothing. God occasionally intervenes despite the unbelief of a receiver rather than in conjunction with his or her faith, but generally, that will not be the case. Today, the receiver is often saddled with the entire burden of failure in the effort to produce the miraculous, but I don't think that represents the total picture of what is going on. Regardless, it cannot be denied that Jesus clearly taught miraculous ministry is received according to one's faith.

The Spirit does as he wills and doesn't do as doesn't will. If the Holy Spirit does not have a mind to do a thing, it just ain't gettin' done! We can exercise some will in relation to the Spirit's will insofar as we go along with what he enables (like in tongues), but his doing is still absolutely necessary to anything miraculous. The only means we have of influencing the impetus of the Spirit is prayer, but the Spirit must be present to do whatever if whatever is to be done.

So, when faith in the doer is contemporaneous with faith in the receiver and the Spirit's willing, a miracle occurs.

Miracles Among Masses: Authority

Among the charismatic, over the last 100 years, a phenomenon known as the healing evangelist or miracle crusade has become common place. More or less, such ministry is an attempt to replicate the ministry of Christ (primarily) and (to a degree) the Apostles. Imo, the result has been less than stellar, many (most) of the miracles less than miraculous, and the practitioners a lot more than shoddy. The concept of replicating the works of Christ, is a noble endeavor: the practice, the miracle crusade, doesn't seem very noble at all to me.

Since I'm not ready or willing to saddle the practitioners with the accusation of outright fraud, what do I think is the problem with their doctrine and practice? First, I think there is a misapplication of the concept of authority in their sense of mission; and second, I think there is an ignorance of what inspiration entails in their practice. Let me develop these thoughts, with this presuppostion: Neither Christ nor the Apostles (in Acts) ever commanded things that did not happen. Therefore, a command or declaration that something is so that doesn't become so in short order is not in the pattern of Christ or the Apostles.

Authority can only go so far. Jesus had as much authority as any human will ever possess. He stilled the wind and waves, cursed the fig, forgave sins, and raised the dead. And yet for all his authority, he was stopped cold in Nazareth. Why? Was he not as in touch with Spirit as he ever was in Nazareth? Was he not as perfectly obedient to his heavenly Father there? Did he not have as much authority as he had anywhere else he went?

Jesus was stymied in Nazareth, not because of any issue of authority, but because of unbelief in the potential receivers of God's miraculous blessing. God is certainly under no obligation to put on a demonstrative show for the entertainment of those who would persist in unbelief anyhow. Besides, even Adam in sinless innocence was not forced by God to believe in God or his word--something tells me it wouldn't be belief if it was imposed. So, though unbelief in people doesn't diminish God's authority in the least, it does prevent them from receiving his gracious ministrations or knowing him intimately.

We have the authority we need, and all the authority we're going to get in our Great Commission. Authority in itself, however, will never be the issue that determines our success, it is merely the invitation for us to proceed. We have no power over the belief or unbelief of people, and in that regard, we'll see what Jesus saw: some believe, some will believe, and some won't believe no matter what we do or don't do. All we can do is not give them a reason for unbelief, and in dependence, follow the lead of the Holy Spirit.

I'll complete my thoughts in my next post.

Just A Bit More About Communion

Continuing on the subject of Communion...

Guilt for the Body and Blood

One may wonder how the violation of the elements of a memorial meal would rise to the level of weakness and death in punishment. To such reverie, I say let us remember: a simple command to not eat a piece of fruit resulted in the weakness and death of everything. It is not the relative scope of the offense itself (as we would see it) which determines God's response in judgment, but what he can see the offense betrays about the condition of faith in the perpetrator. Our scales can in no way be applied to the justice of God.

A God-given sign of faith, not honored as such, carries notable risk with its dishonor. It's not because the substance of the sign (the elements) was violated, but because of the attitude betrayed toward what is conveyed by them. There is no implication in such punishment that necessitates that it entail an affront to some special presence, or gracious virtue. Guilt accrues over simple bread and wine simply because one who is disrespectful of the sign is disdainful of the thing signified by it. One needs to discern this truth when participating in the Supper.

Grace

What God gives us is himself. It's what is at the heart and soul of being born again. The Spirit of God quickens us, and we become living stones, part of the Temple, or habitation of God. It can't get better than that. God, no longer at a distance, but instantly with us and us always with him. To see grace, effectively, as some piece-meal add-on to rebirth fails to understand rebirth. Whatever God wants to demonstrate within the believer springs from his abiding presence within. There are no means of grace, for the only means of divine blessing is God the Spirit, and he is within us before and quite apart from the performance of any ritual.

Superstition

Stevie Wonder was right, superstition ain't the way. Yet it is all too human, even amongst "believers". Case in point: the Bronze Serpent Moses lifted up and of which Jesus said he was the antitype. A memorial for the power God displayed when that serpent was lifted up became, through the superstitious seating of power in the serpent, idolatry. The hold of serpent superstition had to be broken then, the same is true of sacramentalism in the Lord's supper today.

If history is any guide, that same serpent devolution happened quickly in the early church with the Lord's Supper. I think sometimes folks look to the early church for too much. The NT epistles are filled with corrections, rebukes, astonished acknowledgments of sin and doctrinal error in the earliest church. If believers could mess up that badly when the Apostles were still alive and well, what confidence can be placed in their practice once the bodies of the Apostles were cold? The only reliable, authoritative guide we have for faith and practice is the Bible itself!

Conclusion
There is no biblical rule that tells us how often to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The implication in the NT, it seems to me, is that it was practiced often, maybe even at every worship meeting of the first congregations. Nonetheless, I think that if God would have had in mind the sacramental effect that has been saddled on the practice of Communion throughout most of church history, the Spirit would have commanded it less nebulously than "as oft as you eat and drink." No, the spooky necessity attached to the feast is on the back of man rather than the Son of Man.

The celebration does nothing to forgive sin, tap into the blessings God has provided in Christ, or mysteriously bind us together in the one bread and one body of Christ--it bears no sacramental necessity at all.  Jesus inaugurated the meal with the disciples to serve as a memorial until he could eat and drink it again with them in the kingdom of God.  It is simply a God-given way of remembering the means by which we stand before God accepted, and to proclaim our faith that Christ died for our sins, rose for our justification, and is returning for the consummation of his eternal kingdom.

As such the ordinance should not be entered upon callously. One should examine himself before participating and ensure within his own mind that he participates with Christ in view, in a way that honors what Jesus did and taught. That means not eating to satisfy physical hunger or appetite; nor eating self-centeredly, ignoring the body Christ bled and died for. To participate in an manner unworthy of Christ is to eat and drink judgment upon oneself.

Why Cessationism Bugs Me

There are many brothers and sisters who don't see the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the same way that I do. That's OK, although I wish for them the experiences I have had in the Holy Spirit, and even better ones. Honest Christians who don't see from the Word the way into such experiences, are acceptable to me. What isn't are smug naysayers who justify in their own minds an experience of Christianity which isn't like that reported in the Word. All the while, ridiculing those who dare to believe that such an experience could be theirs.

Demands are made for proof, for documentation, for willingly undergoing a spiritual colonoscopy to satisfy the lack of belief in the naysayer. Jesus never felt compelled to bend to similar demands from his naysayers, I see no reason for the spiritually experienced to do so today. I say that any explanatory onus is not on the one endeavoring to live experientially in line with what's in the Word, but on the one who isn't experiencing what is described in the Word. In light of the divergence their experience demonstrates from what is reported in the Word, it is the cessationists and spiritually inactive who have some explaining to do!

I understand, there have been all manner of fleshy demonstrations, goofiness, and out and out fraud among charismatics, but how is that record any worse (or even different) from that for cessationist Christianity. The plain truth is that for cessationists God is mutable, and perhaps even disabled. Without warning or explanation he pulled the rug out from under the disciples' mission and changed their assigned techniques for evangelism and practice within the church. What could be the reason for that, did he run out of power?

If anything changed, it was Christians, specifically their faith in God to demonstrate what he said he would demonstrate through them. It is not surprising to me that when and where Christians dare to believe that what is described in the Word can be their experience, it becomes their experience. God has not changed, neither has his mission for the church, nor the power he makes available for them to do what he's commanded. I think what needs to change is us.

Magic Words

Magic words. Words that in themselves carry efficacious power.

Magic words are discredited among empiricists. Words are the inventions of humans, what in them could be intrinsically powerful?

Don't be too quick to reject magic words, difficult as it may be to acknowledge such a thing--not that I'm superstitious or credulous.

I know this to be true: faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Apparently, there is magic in some words, and we can draw that magic out!

Then that magic draws us out of the grave and into Christ.

The Sufficiency of God II

In highlighting the sufficiency of God, rather than that of the scriptures, I am addressing a shockingly erroneous viewpoint of Christianity that has folk endeavoring to live a life that looks nothing like that presented in the scriptures. These folk are always cessationists, and more often than not, Calvinists. For them, living a godly life is getting out a slide rule and compass, as it were, and applying them to the scriptures, trying to calculate how to do Christianity without exhibiting hardly any of the features that were practiced by the Apostles and the early church and recorded in scriptures. 

The Bible is all-sufficient to guide our faith--what we should believe, and sufficient to guide our practice--these are the kinds of things we should experience and these are the things to avoid, but it is meant to produce a life like it describes. That includes God speaking in real time, the Holy Spirit influencing direction and decision, and inspiring speech and deeds. To pursue some folks view of the sufficiency of scriptures, one, in effect, must white-out huge tracts of the word, all in the name of the word being sufficient. Sufficient for what, I might ask, producing life pretty similar to life without God? Honestly, the only motivation I can see for such action is unbelief!

The wrong view of sufficiency ends up with the believer treating God agnostically, as if he came, dropped off this book and then disappeared, unheard from ever since. The practical effect of such a view is that we are not brought up to the lap of God, through Christ, but stuck behind a curtain trying to figure out life by our best reckoning from the book. That seems to me an empty thing to attribute to the living God.

If we are holding up the word as sufficient in defining and directing Christianity, that sufficiency should entail producing a life that matches what the word describes and exhorts us to experience. Anything else, anything less is a disservice to the Word, not an homage to its sufficiency. When cessationists arrogantly cast aspersions on those endeavoring to walk in the promises of the word, while they staunchly cling to their lack of biblical experience, I must admit I get irritated. If all they offer in their view of the sufficiency of scripture is a "glass empty" vision of life with God actively removed, I think I'll gladly stay with the sufficiency of God.

Love vs. Spiritual Gifts

It is not uncommon when speaking of spiritual gifts (and particularly tongues) to have the uninitiated or inexperienced throw up a barricade to their pursuit with a condescending air, "Love is more important, that's what I'm pursuing." The argument may sound good, and make one feel good if he or she doesn't want to wander off into the spookies, but it doesn't hold up biblically and is actually a surefire way to not pursue love.

It is true, according to the scriptures, that nothing is more important in the kingdom of God than genuine love. It is a difficult thing to practice and nigh unto impossible to master. Love involves committment and sacrifice. Love demands putting my whole being, my goods, my gifts, and my presence at the service of my brothers and sisters. A difficult thing to do consistently, especially when it's not reciprocated! But then love doesn't look to itself, it counts the other as better than itself, and looks to the other's benefit.

Spritual gifts are not intended for the advantage of the gifted. Not that there is not some blessing in passing them along, but they exist to benefit the witness of their expression rather than the channel of their expression. The actor is merely conduit or a tool in God's hand, the benefit is for the common good. In spiritual gifts the focus is never on me but always on thee. Could they be a more loving expression?

Gifts do no one any good buried. In fact, the one who buries the gifts acts in a patently unloving and selfish way in doing so. He or she becomes a robber rather than a blesser, devilish rather than dovish! Love and spiritual gifts are not mutually exclusive, so let's not take the shortcut of putting the axe to one or the other. It's not one or the other, it's meant to be both and that includes tongues!

What would it take for the church to be truly godly? Loving each other as Jesus loves us would certainly fit the bill. I actually believe the world has yet to see what Jesus truly wants to reveal in his church. However, when the covers come off, though it will look unmistakingly like love, it will also be unmistakingly supernatural.

Saving the Enemy

My analysis of biblical end-times prophecy has brought me to theorize that the Antichrist will start out as a nominal Muslim and that his initial empire will be among the Muslim nations in the Levant. Such a thought holds the potential of eliciting an animosity toward Muslims in those persuaded by it. Seeing them as the accomplices of the Antichrist's end-times villainy doesn't cast them in the best of light after all.

I've also stated that opposing the rise of the Antichrist is like spitting into the wind. I believe the rise of the Antichrist will seem logical and even good in its day, and it is part of God's stated plan to wind up redemption history an initiate redeemed eternity. God wants all men saved and all the saved in eternity with him. To poke a finger in the dike trying to withstand the rise of the Antichrist is tantamount to crying "Nahchetlawd" instead of "Maranatha!"

With this in view, what should our attitude be toward the Muslim tribe? Is God's attitude and reaction to Saul of Tarsus any clue? This post by my blogging friend, Dr. Michael Davis, may be of some help in answering those questions. The old iconic image of an alarm clock, with its two bells sounding the alarm, might be a useful illustration. A resurgence of jihadist Islam sounds one ominous tone; the miraculous, Holy Spirit launched rescue mission among Muslims closed off from the evangelistic forays of the church sounds another.

The harmonious ringing of discordant alarms says to the the church, "Wake up, our redemption draws nigh!"

Becoming Holy

Holiness, I think I have established, is about the uniqueness of God's being, and by extension, about that which is not God being made holy by being consecrated to him. It is the consequence of anything, and eventually everything belonging entirely to the holy God. Ultimately, even the reprobate sinner and the principalities, powers and rulers of this present darkness will be his in the fullest sense of the word (that's what the Lake of Fire is all about). In this bubble of time we call history, there is an option available to us. We may render ourselves "not God's" which is but an illusion that can only last for a lifetime, or we may surrender ourselves to God believing him to be Lord which can translate into eternity.

In relinquishing ourselves to God by grace through faith, we become holy, the actual efficacy thereof coming through two impositions. First, sacrificial blood must be imposed upon that which was not intrinsically holy in order to consecrate it; and second, the divine breath (the Spirit of God) which is intrinsically holy, must be imposed upon that which was sprinkled with sacrificial blood to make holy in substance. This is the pattern of things to come revealed in the OT, and this is the fulfillment of things that are in the NT. I would call these two aspects of holiness 1) positional holiness, and 2) substantial holiness.

For humans, positional holiness can only be achieved through the application of the blood of the Lamb of God through faith. When one comes to the conviction that Jesus Christ died for his or her sin and that he or she is trusting that blood alone to make them acceptable to God, that one has become positionally holy. His or her tabernacle of flesh has been sprinkled with blood. As the Holy Spirit inhabits that sprinkled tabernacle, that one has now become one with God and is thereby made substantially holy. Since our tabernacles are made of transitory stuff, God has appointed a day when all that is passing will be transformed into that which is not. Our substantial holiness will then be perfect.

Notice, I have made no reference to efforts or toil in explaining the biblical concept and process of holiness. Had I done so, I would have been in error. Holiness is not something developed from that which is not holy of itself. Holiness is a derivative property for all but him who alone is holy. For us who are not him, holiness comes imputed and imported. To walk in holiness, then, what is required is not a supernatural effort from that which is only natural, but an abandoned cooperation of the natural with the supernatural who has come in.