Be Filled with the Spirit
**
Whitsun Monday 2006
I was asked the following question in the comments section of a recent post. I would like to deal with it in a post rahter than in the comments section.
"Do you think that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon conversion is the only time that one is 'filled,' or can there be multiple "fillings?'"
Certain metaphors from the Bible are often tortured to death, hindering people from understanding the meaning that they were intended to convey. The idea of being "filled with the Holy Spirit" is one of them. The basic idea behind the metaphor of "filling" is that the Holy Spirit is an all-pervasive presence in the lives of those who have believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, nothing is beyond the purview of the Spirit's attention and influence.
It has been so helpful to me to recognize that all the metaphors in the Scriptures for salvation should be considered under the category of relationship. We are persons who have been created by God. That is not a metaphor. God is three persons who relate to one another and also to creation.
In our on-going relationship with the Holy Spirit, he leads us into greater maturity and godliness. We learn more and more of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and we respond to that knowledge with faith, love and obedience. I do not mean to make it sound simple. It can be very messy and complicated due to our fallenness, bad instruction that we might receive, or numerous other circumstances.
Notice the uses of the phrase in the New Testament (Here is a quick search from Bible Gateway). It is not used in a strict, dogmatic manner. It is used more poetically and occasionally. It is usually connected with a person or persons uttering speech about God.
For example, the only time someone not named Luke uses the phrase, it is Paul. He uses it in Ephesians 5:18 as a contrast to drunkenness. Being filled with the Spirit is apprpriate for Christians, being drunk with wine is not. I doesn't seem to me that this metaphor was intended to support the doctrinal assertions of Methodist/Holiness Christians, Pentecostals, or anyone else. I would be happy to hear other options in the comments section.
Propers for Whitsun Monday
Hack away.
Filed in The Big 3 - Ascension, Pentecost, and Trinity Sunday
Related Tags: Whitsunday, Whitsuntide, Whitsun Monday, Pentecost, Holy Spirit, Holiness, Sanctification, Pentecostal, Baptism of the Holy Spirit
posted by axegrinder @ 5:33 PM
8 Comments:
Dr. J,
I like the way you put the emphasis on relationship. That gets away from the terribly literalistic view of the Spirit as actually "filling" us as though he is a substance and we are containers.
A question, though: how would you relate your thoughts to the "second blessing" theology of your alma mater? Or do you? Is itless than convincing to you?
Are you suggesting that since the language of subsequent "fillings" is primarlly limited to Lukan and Pauline theology (which coincidentally, is the majoity of the new testament)is somewhat less normative for Christians?
Would you mind differentiating for your readers your views on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Jake,
Thank you for your interaction.
To question 1 -
No. I am suggesting that the distinction between initial and subsequent fillings is not accurate. It is a paradigm imposed upon the Scriptures. There is no Patristic consensus on the idea. It has not been widely embraced by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or Anglicans.
The fact that the writings of Luke and Paul occupy the majority of the pages of the NT is irrelevant to the point that I am making.
To question 2 -
The Holy Spirit indwells a person when he is baptized. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism take place at the same time, preferably when a person is still an infant.
In anticipation of a possible follow-up question, I do believe in baptismal regeneration.
May I refer you to the liturgies of Baptism and Confirmation from the Book of Common Prayer?
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Baptism.htm
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Confirnation.htm
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Confirnation.htm#Confirmation
Blessings,
Jason
Steve,
I am warm to the idea that there are multiple crises encounters that a believer may have in his life. I can connect that idea to the seven sacraments of the Church. (I think of a wedding as a "crisis experience!")
However, I am not comfortable with the dogmatic assertion of one "second definite work of grace" known as "entire sanctification." I don't think that I am antagonistic to the idea, or the goal of the idea(holiness to the Lord).
I am wary of a doctrine that has had over 250 years to find acceptance in the wider context of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and has failed to do so.
I do see some connections between the Methodist doctrine of sanctification and the Patristic concept of theosis, or divinization. I can agree with some of the development of sanctification theology among the Methodists. At this time I cannot accept requiring people to believe in a "second definite work of grace."
Your comments are always welcome here.
Blessings,
Jason
It could well be that "second work" sanctification theology is an Wesleyan expression of a point of view that is more widely accepted than you think. Without being dogmatic, here, I think we would do well to look back at the "tradition(s)" for examples of teaching or persons who have claimed to have entered into a "deeper life" after a time of faith. One example that comes to mind is Aquinas. But persons as disparate as Catherine of Sienna to Augustine might be marshalled. Certainly, the great mystics of the church are persons who might be witnesses, as well.
In the East baptism and chrismation, while taking place at the same time, are kept distinct as sacramental signs of the work of God. Why? Infant baptism and confirmation are further examples in the West of a sacramental duality to mark various moments of life in faith.
As far as a consensus goes, there are many things that the Church never discussed consensually that have, nonetheless, been part of the Church's perspective. The real question then is whether or not a Wesleyan, like me, can find points of contact with the doctrine as articulated through Wesley and the earlier tradition. In fact, Wesley came to it because of his readings of the Fathers, especially Marcarius.
I am not interested, however, in saving a doctrine, but offering an experience of Christ to people. Hence, there could be very good pastoral reasons to entertain the usefulness of a second work doctrine, even if one views that work in terms of realization of the presence in one's life rather than an additional "filling."
Let's get together and talk -=- do lunch as they used to say in the '90's.
Steve,
In my previous response to you I granted the connection between Methodist entire sanctification and Patristic theosis. That was my way of giving credence to some of the Methodist contributions, as well as recognizing that there is certainly a dynamic view of soteriology in the Great Tradition, a view that does justice to the processive, relational nature of salvation.
I intentionally did not bring up baptism/chrismation and baptism/confirmation because I do not believe that there is any room there for a "second work" dogma. I am aware of attempts to sacramentalize Methodist theology in this manner. I do not think that they jibe with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Anglican conceptions of these sacraments. I think that the existence of two acts (baptism and either chrismation or confirmation) points to a fulfilling or completion of one event, rather than the existence of a second, distinct event.
If the distinctive Methodist doctrine of entire sanctification does not accurately describe people's experience of Christ, then there are very good, pastoral reasons to look elsewhere for ways of promoting holiness in the Church. At this point I am critiquing the best Methodist expressions that I have read and heard, rather than the worst.
Thanks for taking the time,
Jason
Well, you miss the point I was making J. REad my post more carefully. I am not asking you to accept a sacramentalization of Methodist theology. NOt my point at all. Rather, I am suggesting that the church, all along might have intuited a duality in Christian experience: initiation and then a deeper experience.
Also, you make nothing at all of the writings of the mystical writers. And by the way, I don't think you are dealing with the best of the Methodist expressions, but that is a topic for a face to face discussion sometime.
At any rate, I'll drop this and wish you the best as you continue to Anglicanize.
Steve,
I agree that the Church intuited that Christians would have a deepening experience after baptism, whether it be called growth in grace and the knowledge of God, increase in virtues, sanctification, maturation, etc. I have never taken issue with that fact. That was one of the main points of my original post. My responses to you have been focused on my rejection of the Methodist doctrine of a second, definite work of grace, or crisis experience.
Please produce an example of a Roman, Anglican or Eastern mystic who dogmatically asserts a systemized expression of a second, definite work of grace. I am wording it absurdly to show that they cannot be brought forth as witnesses in favor of Methodist dogma. I have already granted that there are commonalities.
You would have to be more specific about how I am failing to deal with the best Methodist expressions. I might be willing to conceded that I am critiquing the more broadly accepted expressions.
As I continue to Anglicanize, I hope that I continually experience the Holy Spirit's sanctifying grace. I'd be happy to take you to lunch and have you take me to task. I look to you as an example of the sanctified life.
Blessings,
Jason
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home