Q1. By what mode did the Lord Jesus give the Holy Spirit?
A1. Pouring
Ac 2:17; Ac 2:18; Ac 2:33; Ac 10:44; Ac 10:45; Ac 11:15
Q2. What does the Scripture call this pouring?
A2. Baptism
Ac 11:16
A Christian husband and father who pastors Hopewell ARP Church in Culleoka, TN
Q1. By what mode did the Lord Jesus give the Holy Spirit?
A1. Pouring
Ac 2:17; Ac 2:18; Ac 2:33; Ac 10:44; Ac 10:45; Ac 11:15
Q2. What does the Scripture call this pouring?
A2. Baptism
Ac 11:16
This week, I was at a pastors' fellowship where this year's theme was heavenly mindedness. It was wonderful. The fellowship also has a very strong ordinary-means-ministry emphasis built into its DNA. Also wonderful. The pastor of the host church gives a talk on it each year that is superior in its annual variety and closeness of application to the talks of his predecessor. This year's talk was marvelous. So with this year's theme on heavenly mindedness and the perennial theme of the means of grace, it felt disconnected to have so many 'Episcoterian' (my term; excuse the shorthand) elements in the worship times.
The day after I got back, our family worship time was in Exodus 19. It was a reminder that until Christ, the church could gather to God but not even touch the bottom of the mountain; just the one man could go up—and then throughout the Sinaitic administration only one man could ever go all the way in. But Hebrews 12 celebrates that with our risen, ascended, enthroned High Priest we go all the way to the top of the mountain and all the way in through the veil; hallelujah!
The regulative principle is not only about making sure that we regard God as holy whenever we come near (cf. Lev 10:1–3); it's also about doing only those things that actually enter into the worship of heaven, only those things that are led by Christ from heaven, only those things that join the assembly of the firstborn, only those things through which we have confidence that the Spirit Himself is bringing us through the veil by the new and living way that is Jesus's flesh, with our bodies washed and consciences sprinkled.
Then last night, I had great fellowship with a brother whom the Lord has brought so far. From evanjelly to fundamentalist baptist, to 'reformed' baptist that was more refordamentalist, and then by Lutheryterian podcast to a church/place of that flavor. Knowing his journey, I understood why he had difficulty processing my views on simplicity and purity of public worship. I wrote him the next two paragraphs, which I've now modified slightly, which is what precipitated this blog post.
When you start to understand what worship is, where worship goes, who leads it, who are joined in it, and what specifically are the worship actions that participate in all that by the Spirit... the believer who understands these things embraces the regulative principle not as a boundary within which we do what we feel like is helpful or meaningful to us, but as a mission on which we hotly pursue in worship only those things that Christ Himself is leading from glory.
So when I talk about public worship, I'm coming from a different angle than just about anyone in "liturgical" circles. I believe in liturgy, but I think that Jesus actually has one (elements and forms though not necessarily sequence) and that to whatever extent we add that which is from man, to the same extent we disconnect ourselves from the worship of heaven and the true church through the ages and throughout history. Ironically, even true churches add things to try to create more connection across history and around the world; but, the very things they add end up taking away from the worship-unity that Jesus Himself had provided.
For further (better!) consideration, maybe take a listen to yesterday's family worship lesson or the "How God Wants to Be Worshiped" sermon series in which I tried to open these things from Scripture. And of course, others have done it better before me.
Someone in the congregation wrote:
Ok, I'm in Leviticus 16. It says this is a statute forever in verse 31 and in verse 34 it says this shall be an everlasting statute for you. Why don't we celebrate Yom Kippur? Is it because it says the priest shall make atonement for the people, the children of Israel for all their sins once a year? But Christ has already made atonement for us?
Since I often get such questions, I thought that my reply (below) might be helpful to others:
Good question. And praise God for giving you the good, Scripture wisdom to go straight to Christ Himself for resolving the answer.
Well, there's a reconstructionist preaching at a conference that is popular among the flock that I pastor, so I'm having to answer the question "what's wrong with reconstructionism?" more for a season.
There's much more to say than the following, but here's one of the primary answers: reconstructionism and dominionism miss that Jesus is the last and obedient Adam. Gen 1:28 has already come to fulfillment in Matt 28:18.
Our duty is not to complete the taming of nature (which is impossible until the resurrection, Rom 8:19–23) or take over nations, but to declare the Lordship and Kingship of Christ and the terms (Matt 28:19) upon which He graciously takes (redeems!) subjects to Himself.
It is the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ that fulfills the dominion mandate over all nations (cf. Ps 72) and all nature (cf. Ps 96, 98). Shall all kings submit to him? Absolutely! And we should declare His gospel and law to them (and, incidentally, to every creature, Mark 16:15). But if we encroach upon His own Mediatorial Kingship under the name of dominionism, we make the civil counterpart to the ceremonial error of encroaching upon His own Mediatorial Priesthood as the papists do.
One may reason that reconstructionism comes in different flavors, and that the one they are being exposed to is milder. If so, praise God for that. But why have someone tell you something, that many others have said well and are saying well, when ending up under him puts you at risk of turning aside into serious error.
Incidentally, the same conference features the man that gave this lady her platform, and he has never publicly repudiated her. Her books became progressively (pun intended) worse, she slandered those who criticized her teaching, and now she's preaching in public worship on the Lord's Day.
I've actually refrained from naming the conference or its host, because historically I love both. But if you happen to know what/when I'm talking about, and are going to attend, please do so with some discernment and some determination not to end up where I've expressed concern that you might.
It's a hard thing when your people want to read or sit under problematic teaching. The main thing, for sure, is so to disciple them through the ordinary means of grace that they develop their own discernment either not to attend or to attend and filter. But at what point do you begin to raise the alarm, and how strongly?