Why the Spirit?

Well, one massive reason is in 1 Corinthians 2:12:

But we have not received the spirit which is of the world but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

I am a charismatic wannabe - I pray regularly for tongues, e.g. (and have not yet received it!). I have no doubt that God heals miraculously today; every day, I suspect. And so on. But what those of us who love the supernatural working of the Spirit in his more visibly startling manifestations must remember is that the NT paints a portrait in which these things are secondary: not irrelevant, not to be ignored, but secondary (note 1 Cor 13). The gifts of the Spirit must never eclipse the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5). Better to be a loving cessationist than a proud charismatic. (But of course, best of all to be a loving charismatic!)

And I love how Paul puts it here in 1 Cor 2. The reason we have received the Spirit, he says, is in order that we might understand grace. The Spirit illumines the gospel. Pneumatology is for theologically-informed doxology.

Is it not possible for us to be truly born again Christians, experiencing the full manifestations of supernatural gifts in our lives, but be living largely moralistically, not living in wonder at the gospel? That was probably a problem in Corinth (1 Cor 12-14!). That is definitely a problem today.

God grant us a fresh outpouring of the Spirit, in both fruit and gifts--in that order.

"Faintest spark of trust"

God's ardor for [his people] is in no way diminished, and whenever the faintest spark of trust appears in them, his breath is there to fan it into flame.

-John Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:665.

The Impotence of Liberal Theology

An ER clip for pastors and all Christians. Hardly ever do we find the ultimate questions being asked in brutal honesty on television. Here is a powerful exception. I couldn't have drawn the script up better myself.

HT: JT

Corinthians and Galatians

I started reading 1 Corinthians today. Chapter 1 is, for me, one of the most powerful portions of Scripture.

A thought struck me as I read it: In spite of the Corinthians' extreme worldliness, utter pettiness, they receive a glowing commendation in the opening paragraph of the letter. (That's a point worthy of reflection in itself--Pastor Paul, knowing full well from reports from those in Chloe's household of the silliness and divisiveness in Corinth, nevertheless looked for the good among the people there! There is a mound of practical pastoral and relational wisdom there. The most difficult people we know need us to point out to them the islands of beauty in them. C.J. Mahaney has helped me see this.)

But what struck me today is the contrast between 1 Cor and Galatians, which opens up with Paul lambasting the "foolish" (3:1) Galatians. The remarkable thing here is that if you and I were to spend a few weeks visiting the Galatian church(es), and then headed west for a few weeks in Corinth among the church there, outward appearances would suggest precisely the opposite letter introduction was called for.

The Galatians had it together. They were moral people. They were intelligent. They were all on the same page. They were scrupulously pressing on for more faithfulness, more obedience. They had their ethical ducks lined up. And they had even managed to hang on to the best parts of Judaism, like circumcision (please note sarcasm).

The Corinthians, on the other hand, were a mess. I spent a year of my life trying to understand 2 Corinthians, and it is just remarkable how dysfunctional these people are. From 1 Cor 5 we know a man was sleeping with his dad's wife, and the Corinthians had no problem with it. They're also claiming various apostles as their own--"I am of Paul, I am of Apollos," etc. In 2 Cor 10-13 Paul comes at them with both barrels blazing and just lets them have it.

But how does he open Galatians? With unequalled rebuke. How does he open Corinthians? With warm commendation.

I note: the Corinthians got lots of things wrong. Sexuality, finances (2 Cor 8-9), the relative importance of dreams and visions, strife and division. In Paul's words, not many of them were of noble birth. But despite all the problems, they got one thing right: the gospel. The Galatians, on the other hand, got lots of things right: obedience, meticulous morality, powerful sacrifice (they would have given Paul their eyes if need be, 4:15). But they got one thing, the most important thing, wrong: the gospel.

You and I are getting a lot of things wrong today, only a fraction of which we are aware. But let's make sure we get one thing right: the counterintuitive gospel, which declares that any attempt to help out our standing with God only infects that standing rather than helping it.

NPP: 7 Pillars

Though I'm still new to the discussion, I see seven broad characteristics uniting those advocating the "New Perspective on Paul," better labeled either the New Perspective on Judaism or the New Perspectives on Paul.

1. Against a widely accepted reading of Second Temple Judaism as a religion of legalistic works’ righteousness, Second Temple Judaism is understood as fundamentally a religion of grace, inducting one into the people of God solely by God’s merciful election and thereafter providing means of atonement for transgressions.
2. An appreciation for Paul’s burden for unity among Jews and gentiles rather than Jewish exclusivism must be renewed.
3. Misplaced reliance upon Jewish social identity markers are the heart of what Paul sees as problematic with the Judaism by which he is surrounded and to which he responds (especially in Romans and Galatians).
4. The Reformation provided and promulgated an unsatisfactory reading of Paul, mistakenly viewing Paul either in light of existential anguish over a stricken conscience or through the lens of sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism rather than that of true first-century Judaism.
5. Interpreters of Paul must assiduously avoid reading both Paul and ancient Judaism through modern Western society’s over-individualized bias rather than in the strongly corporate categories in which Paul and his fellow-countrymen actually thought.
6. Romans 9-11 is reestablished as integral, if not climactically central, to Romans.
7. Post-Holocaust ethnic sensitivities must be kept in mind when reading Paul, especially in light of some anti-Semitic pre-Holocaust Pauline interpretation.

God of This City

A new Passion CD is out: God of This City (Feb 5, 2008). Amazon has a sampler of the songs.

Calvin: Zeal according to Knowledge

This morning I discovered the following statement from Calvin, which expresses so well the fueling conviction of this blog. Commenting on Acts 18:25 (about Apollos being “fervent in spirit” as he preached), Calvin writes that Apollos

was inflamed with a holy zeal to teach. Doctrine without zeal is either like a sword in the hand of a madman, or else it lies still as cold and without use, or else it serves for vain and wicked boasting. . . . Therefore, that doctrine shall be unsavory which is not joined with zeal. But let us remember that Luke puts the knowledge of the Scripture in the first place, which must be the moderation of zeal, for we know that many are fervent without consideration, as the Jews did rage against the gospel, by reason of a perverse affection which they did bear toward the law. . . . Therefore, let knowledge be present that it may govern zeal.

Knowledge fueling zeal; non-doctrinal zeal, on the other hand, suspicious. Yes!

Huckabee: Ephesians 5

This is one more reason why I respect Mike Huckabee and would love to see him in the White House, as well as why he will never get there.

Stott: Reasserting a Biblical Anthropology vis-a-vis NPP

In light of recent discussions on this blog I was frascinated to rediscover this statement from John Stott last night, from p. 29 of his Romans commentary in The Bible Speaks Today series (emphasis original):

[O]ur fallen human nature is incurably self-centred, and pride is the elemental human sin, whether the form it takes is self-importance, self-confidence, self-assertion or self-righteousness. If we human beings were left to our own self-absorption, even our religion would be pressed into the service of ourselves. Instead of being the vehicle for the selfless adoration of God, our piety would become the base on which we would presume to approach God and to attempt to establish a claim on him. The ethnic religions all seem to degenerate thus, and so does Christianity. In spite of the learned literary researches of E. P. Sanders, therefore, I cannot myself believe that Judaism is the one exception to this degenerative principle, being free from all taint of self-righteousness. As I have read and pondered his books, I have kept asking myself whether perhaps he knows more about Palestinian Judaism than he does about the human heart.

Someone buy that man a drink.

Carson: Pastor as Son of God

D. A. Carson's talk on "The Pastor as Son of the Heavenly Father" from this morning's pastor's conference in Minneapolis is up.

Best quote: Dr. Carson paraphrasing Jesus to the Pharisees in John 8: "Let me tell you who your daddy is."