"Five Views on Sanctification" and "Keep in Step with the Spirit"
Post answers to the following questions no later than the end of the day on Wendesday, April 30th. I want to be able to look over them on Thursday, May 1st, ahead of our Zoom call on Friday, May 2nd, 9:00am-11:00am central.
(1) Compare and contrast the Wesleyan view of sanctification with the Keswick view. What similarities do you notice, and what differences?
(2) Pastorally, what do you find helpful in the Wesleyan and Keswick views on sanctification? Do you see anything in these models that is unhelpful, or possibly even dangerous?
(3) Explain and evaluate the Pentecostal view of sanctification and Spirit baptism.
(4) What is your understanding of the biblical teaching pertaining to the following terms?
Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit
Being filled with the Holy Spirit
The "old man" vs. the "new man" or "old self" vs. the "new self" (specifically, do we simultaneously have an "old man" and a "new man" in us, or should we use these terms in a different way? How does this intersect with the term "nature," as in "sinful nature"?)
(5) Evaluate Packer's view on the charismatic gifts/charismatic life.
(6) Explain the Reformed model of sanctification. Do you find it to be the most biblical of all the models? Are there ways it could be further refined biblically?
(7) What is one question that you have to contribute to our discussion?
Here are my views on some issues we didn't get around to on the call:
Baptism in the Spirit. In most NT occurrences it refers to the Pentecost event as the inauguration of a new era of the Spirit. It is specifically contrasted with John's baptism in water in the Gospel, and the Acts 2 event is not associated with water baptism for the disciples. So when Paul says we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), I take that as a reference to our incorporation into the Pentecost event when Christ immerses us in the Spirit at conversion. This is not synonymous with water baptism, just as it is not synonymous with any kind of physical drinking, even though Paul speaks of us all drinking of one Spirit in the same verse. Contra Pentecostalism, it is not a second blessing, nor is it normatively marked by tongues.
Glossolalia. As a continuationist I affirm that glossalalia is a continuing gift of the Spirit. I believe the phenomenon described in 1 Cor. 12-14 is Spirit-empowered free vocalization, not actual, known languages. The same is likely true in Acts 10 and 19. I agree with Bavinck that Acts 2 is a particularly supernatural example of this gift because it involved the gift of spontaneous speech in unlearned languages that did not need interpretation because they could be understood by native speakers present. I wouldn't call Acts 2 a reversal of Babel (because it doesn't undo the diversity of languages) but rather the redemption of Babel (because it gives praise to God in diverse languages). Outside of Acts 2, tongues are either a sign of Spirit reception (Acts 10 and 19) or a form of transrational prayer (perhaps one application of Romans 8:26-27). When interpreted, it edifies others. When u interpreted, it still has value for the speaker. It seems to be used mainly in private prayer. For more, see Carson's "Showing the Spirit" and the articles Vern Poythress has written on glossalalia. Among cessationists, I like Packer's approach to this subject.