;)
Where the Wind Blows: The Sovereignty of the Spirit
Posted by Andrew Wencl in Bible & Theology
When reading the Bible, the questions we formulate can make a huge difference in our interpretation. Asking the question, “What are the implications of Matthew 18:34 regarding the doctrine of purgatory?” already skews our understanding of the passage. Likewise, by immediately seeking an application of John 3:8 to cultures where Christianity doesn’t exist, we run the risk of missing the context of the passage and reading in a superficial answer to the question that may or may not have anything to do with the understanding John was trying to convey in this section of his gospel.
The immediate context of John 3:8 establishes a few things regarding the work of the Spirit. Jesus first hints that we are all outside of God’s Kingdom because we have to be born again to enter it. The second birth is not physical, but is wrought by the Spirit. It is at this juncture that Jesus issues the statement that the Spirit’s work is like the wind which blows where it wills. Therefore, the second birth that places us in the Kingdom of God is up to the sovereign Spirit. This new birth is not solely focused on where we spend eternity, though that is a part of it. It is about a change in status now, a change in direction, a change in perspective (v.3).
However, Jesus then links this second birth to belief in God’s Son, with an explicit reference to eternal life. Here we see that salvation is by belief in Jesus, and this belief, though clearly an act for which we are responsible, is wrought by this second birth which is of the Spirit. Jesus wraps up the discussion with a point of judgment: “the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil” (v.19). Unbelief is what keeps us from entering the Kingdom of God, whereas everyone born of the Spirit “comes to the light” (v.21).
Before seeking an application to cultures and people who have never heard of Jesus, I would like to broaden the context to the rest of John’s gospel. John 16:8-11 says,
“And when he [i.e. the Spirit] comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.”
Here Jesus is not saying that this conviction regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment will lead to belief in Jesus Christ or the second birth. He states that the Holy Spirit will convict people that they are sinners, that there is a righteous standard they must live up to, and, therefore, that they will be judged because they have no advocate. They may not know the “why” (they do not believe, He went to the Father, Satan has been judged), but they will know the “what.” This is the work of the Spirit in the world.
Therefore, taking these passages in hand, we can begin to understand the working of the Spirit and how John 3:3 relates to John 16:8-11 and the people of the world who have no Christian witness. The work of the Spirit in these cultures is one of conviction. He convicts them of the things listed in John 16—sin, righteousness, and judgment. One of the ways people respond to this is through their religious practices. Paul’s address at the Areopagus in Acts 17 sees this in the Athenian practice of polytheism. He sees the altar to the unknown God as a witness to the Spirit’s work of conviction, and some people are saved as a result of his preaching of the gospel.
When the Spirit chooses to bring someone into the Kingdom out of these lost and unreached cultures, He does it sovereignly and brings the gospel to them so they can believe in Jesus Christ. There is no salvation apart from belief in Him (John 3:18). If the Spirit brings someone into the Kingdom of God, it will necessarily include belief in Jesus. The whole of Acts records people coming to faith in Christ from cultures that previously had no access to the gospel. Often it was through believers who moved from place to place and through people appointed to missionary work preaching the gospel. On one special occasion, a man had a dream and it was revealed to him where to find someone who could preach the message of salvation.
The Spirit can bring anyone into the Kingdom of God through His sovereign work, but part of coming into the Kingdom of God is belief in Jesus Christ. The Bible gives many examples of the Spirit working in previously unreached peoples, but never does it describe someone entering the Kingdom of God apart from belief in Jesus Christ.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Andrew:
Acquaint yourself with David Jasper and his Book the Sacred Desert; also the first 50 pages of Diarmand MacCulloch’s Book on Christianity.
Deep vein of thought you are tapping here,maybe unawares.
Google some on Jasper after you take a look at his wikipage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jasper
Stephen,
I scanned the Wikipedia article and did some searching through Jasper’s book on GoogleBooks. I’m not seeing how my train of thought links with his. And from what I found about MacCulloch, I seriously doubt he and I would have much in common.
Perhaps you could explain what you see as a link, or even better, share your personal thoughts on the subject matter of my post.
Excellent post Andrew,….
It brought to mind this great segment of Hebrews….
Hebrews 11:1-6 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (2) For by it the men of old gained approval. (3) By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. (4) By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. (5) By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. (6) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him……………
……………….Hebrews 11:39-12:2 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, (40) because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. (12:1) Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, (2) fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Good Stuff….
Blessings,
Chris
Andrew:
Thanks for doing a cursory look at David Jasper. You would most likely have to read at least the intro to his book.
As is mostlikely not news to you there is a gauntlet being thrown down now about the Spirit of God, and where the Wind Blows.
MacCulloch, like Jasper, do some deep work into the origins of notions of God and the Wind. I find it fascinating.
Like you, I have given my heart to Jesus; my Salvation is through his Grace.
But I do not think he is asking me to Become God, or set myself up in this world as a Perfect Apologist against other traditions. I think in the end, God, our Father will work that out.
Here on earth, while we have moments of great Light, we will see through a glass darkly in these matters.
I guess I put more hope in efforts like this
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16677
than you do.
And that is where I hope you will not hinder the wind.
For practical advancement of this discussion, I think it would be grand if David Rogers could make a way to attend the viewing of the documentary linked above, join the discussion and give us a report here on his experience.
It is showing less then 20 minutes from him in Memphis
For me that would be a Grand Blowing of the Holy Spirit, The Wind.
Brother Stephen,
Interesting article you linked…. One Baptist church getting into the ditch with a Quran buring exhibition….and then another Baptist church crossing the median into on-coming traffic landing upside down in the other ditch “honoring” the reading of the Quran along with the Word of God.
Bizarre my friend,… the Spirit was quenched in both motivations.
Blessings,
Chris
Where did you get the mesoamerican petroglyph with the spirit inserted, Andrew? Makes me wonder what this says.
Excellent work Andrew. No “contention” from me today.
Rob
Rick,
Glad you asked. I actually put some thought into the picture. I wanted something visual to link with the concept of the Spirit being active in unreached people groups. Since the Mayans were unreached and their civilization had risen and fallen prior to the arrival of Christianity, I figured they were a good place to start. I found a picture of about ten Mayan glyphs and then I looked for a symbol of the Spirit. I cropped the Mayan glyphs and ordered them around the symbol of the Spirit.
It represents the presence of the Spirit in unreached cultures. The symbol (and therefore Spirit) is clearly foreign to the culture, since it is a different color and style, but it is present nonetheless. Inclusivists would agree and say that He saves some. My position is that He can convict them of their sin and the hopelessness of their condition before God, but He does not save them apart from hearing and believing the gospel.
Chris:
I don’t think Jesus died on the Cross so that you and me could have an argument about who Quenches the Spirit.
Strong case can be made lot of folks who are your cloud of witnesses went to all kind of excesses to quench The Spirit Jesus was revealing in America in the 50′s and 60′s through MLKing Jr and Fannie Lou Hamer.
Not as a taunt, but as a matter of the historical record, Will Campbell was on the Balcony of the Lorraine Motel the evening Martin king was assassinated and Adrian Rogers and Ed McAteer were not.
So if maybe you’re bent was wrong then about where the Spirit was blowing, then maybe you are wrong now.
That said, I do think it would be grand if David Rogers could find it within himself to attend the showing of Parham’s documentary at FBC Memphis at 2 in the afternoon an upcoming Sunday later this month; and open his Heart to the Spirit and Conversation there and give us a report about how that experience tempered his faith pilgrimage here on this earth.
As the Hebrews passage above goes on to say, as people of faith we are pilgrims and strangers here on the Earth.
For me one meaning of that verse is things are not as cut and dry as you seem to be absolutely certain they are.
Otherwise, blessings on you
Stephen,
I don’t have a problem with Christians exhorting non-Christians to good works, but there are ways of doing that without compromising the gospel. In fact, there are ways of doing that while sharing the gospel.
As such, I have great faith in Christian efforts to accurately present the gospel. I do not believe Christians who downplay or ignore the gospel can have as great an eternal impact as those who don’t.
By failing to distinguish between social justice & political causes and the simple truth of the gospel message, you have redefined what salvation really is and how it can be experienced. If you want to argue the interpretation of Scripture regarding the “How” of salvation, I’m all ears. But if you want to argue from politics and publicity moves, I’m afraid I can’t debate what is “right in your own eyes.”
Thanks, Andrew.
So what do you think of C. S. Lewis’s treatment in “The Last Battle” of the contrast between the syncretism of Tashlan and the inclusivism that recognizes sincere worship of a conscience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit may not take the proper object in name, but does so in spirit and truth, i.e. the soldier who worshiped Tash all his life, but Aslan ascribed his righteousness to himself?
Or more practically, what of Jethro in the OT who seemed to have a relationship with God even though he wasn’t following the Isrealite forms? Contrast with Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch in the NT who needed the gospel to be saved and God sent it.
This of course goes to the question of the Mayans and whether salvation was even possible for them in pre-Columbian America. Often these questions seem to take the tack of getting God off the hook for their eternal damnation. I don’t like that route and wonder what provision God made for them prior to contact with the gospel. None? Conscience? Miracles? Angels? Or is it an eternal mystery we will never solve this side of heaven?
Brother Stephen,
Black and white are good solid ways to look at life. Just as Andrew has written here on the subject of belief, that of which does occur as the Spirit effects, causing confession.
1 John 4:15-19 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (16) We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (17) By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. (18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. (19) We love, because He first loved us.
The quenching of the Spirit comes when we disobey God….that is the consequences of not heeding the Apostle Paul’s warning to vividly described to those in Ephesus…..
Ephesians 5:6-16 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (7) Therefore do not be partakers with them; (8) for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (9) (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), (10) trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. (11) Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; (12) for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. (13) But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. (14) For this reason it says, “Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you.” (15) Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, (16) making the most of your time, because the days are evil.
The reading of the Quran is “empty words”…so then we are commanded not to participate and “honor” such (burning is somewhat of an honoring on its own). We are called to expose, not honor or burn. It is fashionable these days to fall into the popular pluralistic religious “honoring” as if we can pass over the exhortation to those at Ephesus. But,…thankfully, we have the Word of God which operates predominately in black and white mode, and the Spirit gives the understanding.
Blessings,
Chris
Rick,
I think Lewis proves he is a better philosopher than expositor of Scripture. I also think he should have known better. Allegory or no, his finale promotes inclusivism, and I think it is a stain on a rather beautiful work of Christian fiction.
Regarding Jethro and other non-Israelite believers (Melchizedek and Job, for example), we have to remember to consider progressive revelation and redemptive history. We cannot assume they were not privy to the revelation that had been given at the time, and given Job’s understanding of the Holy, it would be inappropriate to say he was unaware.
Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch are interesting cases. Cornelius more so because God used an angel to tell him where to find someone who could provide him with the message of salvation. That the angel did not tell him the message is worthy of note. Dare I say that the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is less spectacular? It is not uncommon for people to feel the calling of God to go somewhere or to speak with someone about the gospel. The most unusual occurrence is not Philip being called to take the desert road, but him being whisked away after sharing the gospel with the eunuch.
Was salvation possible in pre-Columbian America? Better to ask, “Is salvation possible apart from receiving and believing the gospel?” There are any number of things God could have done had He wanted to do so. There is no record (unless you count the Book of Mormon) of Christ or the angels preaching the gospel to peoples where the gospel had not been proclaimed. The belief that the lost deserve access to the gospel in order to be justly condemned by God is foreign to the Bible and, therefore, it is foreign to a biblical understanding of missions. We go because He deserves it, not them. I fully recognize the sovereignty of the Spirit in regeneration. The Bible teaches that the gospel is not necessary for condemnation, but it is necessary for salvation.
On a personal note, I believe election and reprobation are biblical, so the issue of God’s justice and goodness comes up much earlier for me and must be settled long before I get to the issue of those who have never heard.
So you agree that progressive revelation exists in a particular geography. Why then does it not extend to other geographies? I’m just asking why, if the revelation was progressive for the Levant, why it was not seen as progressive following the Advent for non-Levantine areas?
Paul has no problem starting in Athens with the level of revelation they have – “The one you worship as an unknown, seeing as you already have an altar to him, He’s the one I’m going to talk to you about…” – or taking those who had John’s baptism of repentance and revealing the Holy Spirit to them to reveal even more to them. He seemed to start with those who were already devout and build on what they already had to bring them to fullness in Christ.
I’m just intrigued by the sentiment that God is not very far from any one of us if only we would yearn after Him. I’m not so quick to consign the heathen to condemnation and for the reasons you cite. The Holy Spirit IS sovereign and can do as The Father pleases. The good news did not condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. I believe Romans 1 and 2 provide adequate basis for condemnation, but like those discussed in scripture as ancillaries (Zophar, Bildad, Elihu, Jethro’s descendants, etc.) who were not participants in Israel’s expression of the faith, yet are counted as belonging to God, I lean toward a soft inclusivism. But it is an inclusivism that starts with God’s sovereignty first. He gets to decide who is His and who is not.
At this point I have a hard time articulating a position coherently. And that is what makes me wonder if it is my Calvinistic upbringing or my actual understanding of what the Bible truly says that makes exclusivism the only logical option?
I never stated there was a relationship between geography and accountability to progressive revelation regarding acceptable belief and practice. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by your first paragraph.
Paul did start where the Athenians were at, as he did with the Jews and the disciples of John the Baptist. But he never implied that their sincerity or attempts at pleasing God were acceptable to God.
Acts 17 states that God is “not far from each one of us,” yet Paul is clear from Romans that “no one seeks God.” He even says, in regard to the accessibility of divine revelation that the Jews are not any better off than the gentiles; both are under condemnation. I agree with you that “the good news did not condemn the world” because the world was already condemned.
This is an interesting discussion, especially in light of Calvinistic thinking which holds that God’s election is unconditional. But if (past, present, or future) certain people groups are not reachable by a human Gospel messenger, then it would follow that God could not in fact elect anyone in that group. Election then becomes conditioned upon the accessibility of the individual by a human gospel messenger.
Just thinking out loud.
This is an interesting conversation, and one on which I have had some questions myself.
FWIW, some of you may remember the dialogue I had with Darby Livingston on some very similar questions not long ago, on the following post, starting around comment #38:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/07/09/what-in-the-world-is-new-covenant-theology/
I think Darby’s comments to me there were very helpful, related to all this. Perhaps he will pipe in here again.
Not a problem for my Hardshell/Primitive Baptist friends, Bill. God’s election is sufficient in and of itself. The gospel is merely window dressing for a salvation they already possess due to predestination.
That’s their answer to the problem of the heathen without the gospel.
Stephen,
Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment, and won’t be able to make it for the “Different Books—Common Word” presentation. Though I am not sure to what point I would agree with it (best to see it yourself, before passing judgment, IMO), I would, indeed, be curious to see it, and, if nothing else, think more deeply about the issues it raises. Perhaps there will be an opportunity somewhere else, later.
Actually Bill, the perishing of nations prior to access to the gospel would indicate that they had been prepared for destruction in order to make known the riches of his glory for the elect. God sovereignly orchestrated their non-access to the gospel.
Rick,
Am I hardshell, primitive, or half-baked?
You know better than to say that Calvinists believe salvation is independent of the response the gospel with faith and repentence. It is actually inclusivism that believes “the gospel is merely window dressing.”
Andrew, only Ephraim is half-baked, or a cake not turned, according to the Bible. I’m just relating what the PB’s have told me. Hopefully, that doesn’t relate to your brand of Calvinism.
I was reading through David’s string and he articulated far better what I was thinking when he said: “However, are you saying that the condition of the “heathen,” in regard to their accountability before God, changed at the moment of the crucifixion? Thus, it is not so much a matter of new revelatory communication received, as it is mere chronology? Or, are you saying there were Jews (and others?) before Christ who responded positively (in faith) to the partial revelation they received, and it was counted as righteousness to them, while, in contrast, there are none after Christ who respond in the same way, and do not eventually receive a more complete gospel witness? I guess, in accordance with God’s sovereignty, this is entirely possible (i.e. He ensures that each and every one who responds to Him in faith will eventually have a sufficient revelation of Christ and his atonement to receive it as the basis of his/her salvation). Or, is there some other explanation, or aspect of this, I am leaving out?”
And I found Darby’s answer’s very thought-provoking. Not sure I’ve even come close to digesting them. Still masticating on them.
David Rogers:
Thanks (#13) for giving the Memphis showing of Common Word some consideration. I do wish there was a way you could see it on that day. Maybe someone close to you in the area can go take it in and give you a report.
It is getting ongoing what I think is deserved attention. And in the link I share above you see some fairly influential folks in its corner including Anne GrahamLotz Brother in Law Denton Lotz.
I may take further discussion to the Mosque thread.
I do appreciate you taking a look at the James Davison Hunter book and what I take was your reading of the Christian Century Review.
Rick,
I have not yet been able to read through the whole discussion between David and Darby, and I may not be able to until after this weekend. I do find the conversation to be edifying and I’m happy David provided the link (I must have been on other business when the post came out).
I can see how things can get complicated, and the edges will probably never be smoothed out entirely. At the time of Noah, all people had access to the same revelation. Yet as time went on people were unfaithful and strayed. Monotheism is supplanted by polytheism by the time of Abraham. From what we’ve been able to discover, few if any of the peoples in the Americas were monotheists. The only one I can think of is located in a book called “Eternity in Their Hearts.” The author believes God has left a hint of Himself in people groups, yet even he denies they had salvific knowledge.
Regarding a change in culpability after the coming of Christ, I don’t think that there was one for the gentiles. Hearing the gospel and rejecting it would add further culpability, but the unreached are sufficiently condemned by the revelation of nature (Rom. 1&2).
Even the Jews, Paul asserts, are condemned by what they know. How Judaism switched from a saving faith to a non-saving one is difficult for my mind to grasp. Yet even by Pentecost it is assumed that the Jews are lost, so there hypothetical possibility of people being saved apart from faith in Christ is nonexistent 50 days after Christ’s death, at a minimum.