Very nicely done, especially in laying out the distinctions between cessationism vs continuation of supernatural acts vis-a-vis the fruits of the Spirit—all illustrating the balance of a well-considered Wesleyanism. Thank you for helping us to think through this all important doctrine.
I think you're right to issue this corrective. I hope you saw the larger point I was trying to make. The reason so many are skittish about the Spirit is because the people who claim to be closest to him are often the most unstable. The world lacks the discernment to see who really has the Spirit and who has another spirit. Indeed, even within the church, many lack the discernment to determine what is of the Spirit and what is not. Nutty people have always been drawn to the mystical, the ungoverned spiritual. Even so, we cannot refuse to go there because crazy people are there. Rather, it is our task to go there and make sure the God of Order prevails over the chaotic and willful activities of those who claim to be of the Spirit but are not.
Jeffrey, as you’ve noted here in this article, the role of the Holy Spirit is essential to our salvation, from start to finish. One other aspect that I’ve noticed amongst Wesley’s spiritual descendants is that I’ve never encountered a cessationist, in other words I’ve never heard of one who denies that some of the Gifts of the Spirit have now ceased. I personally can’t find any Biblical support for cessationism. As to the proper gender assigned to the Holy Spirit, Jesus himself referred to the promised gift of the Holy Spirit as he or him in John 15:26, and 16:7-8. Also Paul used the term “Spirit of Jesus Christ “ interchangeably with Holy Spirit in Philippians 1:19. As to the old hymns about the Holy Spirit having more theological depth, one of my favorites is Luther’s hymn, “Come , God Creator, Holy Ghost”. He translated it from a much older Latin hymn entitled VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS, which is attributed to Pope Gregory 1, who was born A.D. 540.
Yeah a cessationist Wesleyan would be quite a thing. I think a lot are open to the possibility that the Holy Spirit isn't moving as powerfully as in the days after Pentecost. Also, I notice that a lot of 'cessationists' today are saying that the Holy Spirit can and does still do supernatural things, but that the level of power seen in the days of the apostles is gone. They don't believe that we have inherited the same level of authority of the original 12. I think there are probably tons of different strands of this...
Well, a-hem, great outline of why we need the Spirit and the serious, needful work the Spirit does! But I'll be one of the ones who take issue with calling the Spirit ANY gender. As you know, different Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words are used for the Spirit and each has specificity in either being neutral or masculine or feminine. I don't think it's true to God's word to call the Spirit only one thing or to try to attribute gender distinctions, as we know gender distinctions. And no, I also don't believe this has anything to do with "gender expressions" - that's a cultural sin and has to do with sexual imagination that is very flawed. So, to be clear, I believe as GMC we need room for egalitarian and complementarianism. Different theologians even define those theological persuasions differently. You've defined the distinction differently than I would describe it, for example. For me, it has nothing to do with feminism at all; it has to do with scripture and God's story as saving both men and women; and God's self-determination (not my determination for him). I hope I can continually ask God to teach me to love and serve better; to purify rather than solidify what is tainted in me. You've said you see the Holy Spirit's work as "masculine" rather than "feminine." I'm curious about what you mean by that statement? (This is a friendly question not a heated debate. I'm not really interested in a heated debate. I have 'no dog in the fight' to make you believe differently than you do.) Of course, how you and I define masculine and feminine might be different. Maybe that's why I don't see what you're referring to, but I really really don't see what you mean. If you're able to point it out, I'd appreciate understanding your viewpoint.
Very nicely done, especially in laying out the distinctions between cessationism vs continuation of supernatural acts vis-a-vis the fruits of the Spirit—all illustrating the balance of a well-considered Wesleyanism. Thank you for helping us to think through this all important doctrine.
"The Holy Spirit has always made people go nuts." NO. HE doesn't. People do and attribute crazy actions to Him.
I think you're right to issue this corrective. I hope you saw the larger point I was trying to make. The reason so many are skittish about the Spirit is because the people who claim to be closest to him are often the most unstable. The world lacks the discernment to see who really has the Spirit and who has another spirit. Indeed, even within the church, many lack the discernment to determine what is of the Spirit and what is not. Nutty people have always been drawn to the mystical, the ungoverned spiritual. Even so, we cannot refuse to go there because crazy people are there. Rather, it is our task to go there and make sure the God of Order prevails over the chaotic and willful activities of those who claim to be of the Spirit but are not.
Jeffrey, as you’ve noted here in this article, the role of the Holy Spirit is essential to our salvation, from start to finish. One other aspect that I’ve noticed amongst Wesley’s spiritual descendants is that I’ve never encountered a cessationist, in other words I’ve never heard of one who denies that some of the Gifts of the Spirit have now ceased. I personally can’t find any Biblical support for cessationism. As to the proper gender assigned to the Holy Spirit, Jesus himself referred to the promised gift of the Holy Spirit as he or him in John 15:26, and 16:7-8. Also Paul used the term “Spirit of Jesus Christ “ interchangeably with Holy Spirit in Philippians 1:19. As to the old hymns about the Holy Spirit having more theological depth, one of my favorites is Luther’s hymn, “Come , God Creator, Holy Ghost”. He translated it from a much older Latin hymn entitled VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS, which is attributed to Pope Gregory 1, who was born A.D. 540.
Yeah a cessationist Wesleyan would be quite a thing. I think a lot are open to the possibility that the Holy Spirit isn't moving as powerfully as in the days after Pentecost. Also, I notice that a lot of 'cessationists' today are saying that the Holy Spirit can and does still do supernatural things, but that the level of power seen in the days of the apostles is gone. They don't believe that we have inherited the same level of authority of the original 12. I think there are probably tons of different strands of this...
👍👍🙏🏻
Well, a-hem, great outline of why we need the Spirit and the serious, needful work the Spirit does! But I'll be one of the ones who take issue with calling the Spirit ANY gender. As you know, different Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words are used for the Spirit and each has specificity in either being neutral or masculine or feminine. I don't think it's true to God's word to call the Spirit only one thing or to try to attribute gender distinctions, as we know gender distinctions. And no, I also don't believe this has anything to do with "gender expressions" - that's a cultural sin and has to do with sexual imagination that is very flawed. So, to be clear, I believe as GMC we need room for egalitarian and complementarianism. Different theologians even define those theological persuasions differently. You've defined the distinction differently than I would describe it, for example. For me, it has nothing to do with feminism at all; it has to do with scripture and God's story as saving both men and women; and God's self-determination (not my determination for him). I hope I can continually ask God to teach me to love and serve better; to purify rather than solidify what is tainted in me. You've said you see the Holy Spirit's work as "masculine" rather than "feminine." I'm curious about what you mean by that statement? (This is a friendly question not a heated debate. I'm not really interested in a heated debate. I have 'no dog in the fight' to make you believe differently than you do.) Of course, how you and I define masculine and feminine might be different. Maybe that's why I don't see what you're referring to, but I really really don't see what you mean. If you're able to point it out, I'd appreciate understanding your viewpoint.