Being Filled with the Spirit

In conservative evangelical circles lots of debate went on 20 years ago about the filling with the Holy Spirit. The major conclusion that was reached was that we are baptised with the Spirit at conversion. There were several variations on the conclusion, but it was mainly that conversion and baptism in the Spirit are synonymous. Sadly those who didn't quite agree were sometimes considered outside the camp. Even Martin Lloyd Jones was held in some suspicion for his book Joy Unspeakable, which seemed to question this orthodoxy.

I have been thinking about this in conjuction with my reading of Acts. The structure of Acts in several distinct panes, each making the point about how the Word went to a fresh field, was often used in the argument to demonstrate that any account of the Spirit falling independently of conversion was a unique historical event, like a mini-pentecost, for each new sphere. But that it only occured once in each new sphere and therefore should not be normalised or universalised.

I think that the debate considered closed for a lot of years in conservative circles is alive and open again. With more experience of God working, I start to become a little uncomfortable with my previous reasoning. I wonder if I produced a scriptural-sounding justifications for avoiding what the text says, because it didn't cohere with my experience.

It seems to me that there are more and more credible people with deep knowledge of the scriptures taking a view that God often endues with the Spirit subsequent to conversion (whether they refer to it as baptism or multiple fillings). Previously most of the heavy weight exegetical guns were on one side of the discussion only, but now it feels like there are people of doctrinal as well as experiential credibility on both. Very infrequently compared to a decade ago do I hear the claim that contemporary prophecy or a view on second blessing inherently damages a high doctrine of scripture.

Views on this issue are no longer thought by many to be the touchstone of evangelical orthodoxy that defines whether you are a conservative evangelical or not. As a result some possibilities are arising for fresh friendships between biblical Christians with different views on the issue.

I'm grateful to Adrian Warnock and Rob Wilkerson for pointing out this message on receiving the baptism of the Spirit from Terry Virgo. It is a spiritually powerful message. You may not agree with all of it, I am not sure I do. But I challenge you to listen to it without crying out to God for more of the Spirit. As Virgo puts it "God wants you full of the Spirit. Every Christian full of the Holy Spirit is proof that Jesus is ascended."

Listen, bow before God, rejoice and receive.

http://www.newfrontiersusa.org/mediaarchive/media/eqm08_session_003.mp3

Acts 13:4-12 Posing as an Angel of Light

A retired missionary friend recently asked me if my generation has forgotten that Jesus was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. I think he is right. He said that in his view the forces of wickedness work differently in seular Britain to where he worked for many years in the East. There he saw demonisation and terrific fear of evil spirits. Possibly a bit like in Acts 13. Here, he maintained, Satan is much more likely to pose as an angel of light, espousing relativism, denying the existence of God (and Himself - read Screwtape!), and insisting that nobody invite anyone else to come to Christ or challenge other people's beliefs, under the guise of tolerant neutrality and niceness. My friend's contention was that this is pretty much the same thing as the evil demonisation.
Read more

"I don't want balance, I want it all"

Adrian Warnock wrote: Why should I have to choose, for example, between being enthusiastic about theology and being charismatic?
Why shouldn't we have churches that are every bit as concerned about doctrinal accuracy and knowledge as John MacArthur, that love relational intimacy with Jesus as much as John Arnott, see miraculous healings that are every bit as dynamic as the ones the tele-evangelists claim to have seen, are as full of vision and purpose as Rick Warren, as skilled in leadership as Bill Hybels, as humble and committed to spiritual maturity as C. J. Mahaney, as relevant to practical life as the author of any self-help book you can think of, that impact social needs in the model of Shaftsbury, tackle political issues like Wilberforce, preach with both the passion for souls of Spurgeon and the passion for God's glory of John Piper, that hear from God as clearly as any modern prophet, are as aggressively missional as Mark Driscoll, have the apostolic drive of Terry Virgo, and yet somehow still feel as comforting as my wife's homemade apple crumble with custard?
Maurice McCracken is writing on similar lines: Am I charismatic yet? His observation? That we need both a strong doctrine of the regeneration of the heart and a strong doctrine of the depravity of the heart. Is it so unreasonable to believe that God is at work in me, and to simultaneously be suspicious of myself, always scrutinising myself with the scriptures? Let's have both.

Being Filled with the Holy Spirit

I am preparing a Bible message to preach in a two Sunday's time. The prep. took me to Romans 15:13:

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is amazing! Paul expects that:

1. God fills us with all joy and peace as we trust him

2. That therefore we will overflow with hope

3. That this is the power of the Holy Spirit at work

The Holy Spirit is making us overflow with hope, being filled with the joy and peace of God, through trusting him. That makes me want to expand my faith and learn to trust him more.