Spiritual Maturity: A Rare Yet

Essential Requirement for a Healthy

Church
o Cornelis Pronk

Spiritual immaturity: A systemic problem⤒🔗

Many problems in the church can be traced to a deficiency of spiritual maturity of its members. Many
reveal by their conduct that they are spiritually immature, even after they have reached their senior years.

The Apostle Paul often had to deal with this problem in his ministry. In all his letters, he stressed not only
the need to be justified by faith in Christ, but also that, after having received Christ, they should
be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith” (Col. 2:6-7). He was often disappointed when
he found believers lacking in this respect. The apostle to the Hebrews, recognizing the same problem,
reprimanded the readers of his epistle that they were not ready for “strong meat,” even though they had
been Christians for years. While you ought to be teachers by now, he complains, you still need to be fed
with milk and taught “the first principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12).

Spiritual immaturity was not only a problem in the early church. Also among us there are many professing
believers who do not seem to rise above the infantile stage of spiritual life. No matter how advanced in
years they may be, their conduct and speech is such that one thinks, how childish these people act! I do
not say childlike; we may always remain childlike in faith, trusting the Lord fully like little children trust their
parents. But childish  is something else. That is a word we apply to people who are combative,
dissatisfied, easily hurt, petulant, and annoying when they don’t get their way. There were many people
like that in the congregation of Corinth, but also among the Galatians and other Christian communities.
We have them, sad to say, in our congregations as well.

Spiritual immaturity shares many characteristics with natural, physical immaturity. That should not
surprise us because God is both the Creator of our natural, psychological or mental life and the re-Creator
of our spiritual life.

God creates and recreates the whole man←⤒🔗

When, by God’s grace, we become new creatures in Christ, we need to emphasize both the new and the
creaturely aspects of believers. God’s redeeming work aims at the restoration of our total humanity. It is
the whole man – body, soul, and spirit – who is restored into a reconciled, loving relationship with God,
our neighbor, and ourselves. In conversion, great changes take place in a sinner. But this does not mean
that all of a sudden his less desirable character traits will disappear. If he was an angry and impatient
man prior to his conversion, he does not immediately or overnight become a calm and patient person. He
remains the same person with all his weaknesses and idiosyncrasies, but with this difference: he begins
to fight against his ugly character faults. Believers who don’t do this or make little or no progress in this
 respect remain spiritually immature and should sincerely examine themselves whether their conversion
was genuine.

It is important, therefore, to know what are some of the marks or characteristics of spiritual maturity. I will
mention just five.

1. Stability and flexibility←↰⤒🔗

A spiritually mature person is stable and yet flexible. Children are neither, because they still depend on
their parents for everything. There is no stability yet because their character is still being formed. Stability
comes gradually as they pass through their crisis years of puberty. A distinct personality develops.
Convictions are internalized and a specific lifestyle is adopted. Choices and decisions are made. By the
time they reach their twenties, their character is formed and maturity is attained. The truly mature person,
however, is not just stable and set in his convictions; at the same time, there is flexibility. There is
openness and receptivity for self-criticism and correction from others. He has the ability to discern
between what is and what is not important and therefore knows when he needs to stick to his convictions
and when he can afford to be lenient and tolerant. We meet people like that in the world. They are
unbelieving but nice people and sociable, easy to get along with. Often they compare favorably with
Christians from whom more can be expected.

With spiritually mature people, you see the same stability and level-headedness, yet also flexibility. The
Apostle Paul longs to have people like that in the congregation. In Philippians 1, he asks the Lord that the
Philippians may “abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment” so that they may “approve
things that are excellent” (Phil. 1:9-10).

Spiritually mature Christians possess the spirit of discernment. They have learned to apply the Word of
God to all kinds of situations and problems. The spiritually immature person cannot do this. He does not
see through the situation and the problem, and cannot come up with the proper solution. He is unsure of
himself, needs help and guidance, but instead of admitting this, he often acts as if he knows it all. He is
quick to judge, makes rash decisions, and goes at it harshly. Pity the congregation that has people like
that in leadership positions! Such people often know deep down that they are not fit for the office, but they
act as though wisdom is with them. They present themselves as defenders of orthodoxy and will not
tolerate the smallest changes, even when it concerns peripheral issues. They cannot distinguish between
what is important and what is (relatively) unimportant. For them, everything is essential to salvation.

What a blessing it is, therefore, for a congregation to have men at the helm who are able to speak and act
with conviction but who also recognize that others may have opinions that are worth considering,
especially when it concerns adiaphora, or things indifferent.

2. A balanced view of self and self-worth←↰⤒🔗

A second mark of spiritual maturity is a balanced view of oneself and proper self-esteem. Children do not
yet have self-knowledge. They are not able to evaluate themselves properly because they go by what
parents and other people say or think of them. They are very sensitive to this, especially when it concerns
the opinion other children have of them. Their sense of self-worth is based almost entirely on their peers`
approval or disapproval. This is not so bad; it belongs to the normal development of the child. Eventually,
he will grow out of that stage and, as every parent knows, this brings other problems with it because now
Johnny thinks he knows everything.
 What is serious is that many physically mature people stay at the mental level of children with the result
that they never attain to a healthy knowledge of themselves. This lack of proper self-knowledge often
leads to two opposite results: either to overestimation or underestimation of oneself. A mature person has
a more realistic view of himself. He will not, in false humility, think less of himself than is necessary. But
neither will he rate himself higher than is biblically warranted. He is not afraid to say that he believes he
has the gifts to take on a certain task or position. But, on the other hand, he will readily admit that he lacks
the qualifications for accepting a certain assignment for which others are better equipped. In other words,
this person has a proper understanding of his limitations but also a healthy awareness of his gifts and
abilities.

Some people think that these two things cannot go together. But be careful for Christians who seem to be
so humble. They think nothing of themselves, they say, but when someone steps on their sensitive toes,
they will reveal just how proud they really are.

The Apostle Paul shows us what true humility is and how it can go together with proper, biblical self-
worth. In his epistles, he states repeatedly that he is deeply conscious of his sins. He cannot forgive
himself that he has persecuted Christ and His church; that he, of all people, had been chosen to become
a servant of the gospel is a source of great amazement to him.

But while he often speaks of his sin and guilt and unworthiness, we also find in his letters many
statements pointing to his many accomplishments as church builder and preacher. This was not bragging
on his part, but a realistic assessment of what he had become by the grace and power of God. Of course,
none of us can compare ourselves with Paul and what he has accomplished in the service of his Savior,
but it is not wrong to acknowledge God for what He has done for us, in us, and through us.

3. Judging objectively and impartially←↰⤒🔗

A third mark of spiritual maturity is that we learn to judge other people and issues objectively and
impartially. No one can be completely objective and impartial. We are all people with heads and hearts.
That is to say, in all our evaluations of people and things that happen, both our minds and feelings play an
important part. With reference to objectivity and impartiality, I mean that we need to make a serious effort
to evaluate a person or a matter in as open and honest a way possible. Many people are unable to do
this, which causes serious difficulties in church and society. True, our judgments are always influenced to
a certain degree by sympathy or prejudice.

However, the question, especially for Christians, is to what extent we allow ourselves to be so influenced.
It belongs to spiritual maturity that we are aware of this danger. We need to resist all subjective and
partisan tendencies because these can easily lead to injustice toward fellow Christians. We must face the
ugly truth that we are by nature prone to hate God and our neighbor. And even where this hatred is
removed in principle as a result of the new birth, believers still have to fight against corruptions of the
remaining old nature.

One manifestation of this corruption is that we tend to be suspicious toward fellow Christians whom we do
not like because they don’t agree with us in everything. We tend to view these others as liberal or
conservative and evaluate what they say or do from that perspective. Spiritually mature believers do not
take sides with one or the other party, but they will take the side of Christ. Only the Son of Man can set us
free from the prison of partisanship. He is the only Party who is always right and never operates from
ulterior motives. His Word alone must be our standard and guide for assessing difficult problems and
seeking solutions for them.
 Problems in a congregation are resolved only when everyone realizes that he or she is part of the
problem and stands in need of forgiveness. As imitators of Christ, we will try to be impar tial, honest, fair,
merciful, and mild in our judgments.

4. Knowing how to deal with adversity and disappointments ←↰⤒🔗

A fourth mark of spiritual maturity is the ability to deal with adversities and disappointments in a positive
manner. Many Christians cannot do this. They are thrown into confusion at the slightest difficulty that
comes their way. When something happens that does not fit their expectations, they panic. Usually such
immature behavior can be traced to their having been spoiled as children. They always had to have their
way and parents gave in to their every wish. Everything revolved around them and this self-centered
attitude stays with them throughout their lives.

Part of a healthy development of children includes that they learn to reckon with others and their rights.
Where such social skills are not taught and internalized, people become most difficult to live with. One
finds such people also in the church. They are egocentric in much of what they do; they view others and
judge them solely from their own selfish perspective and advantage. When they are not recognized for
their accomplishments they complain that no one appreciates them. They cannot handle adversities when
these inevitably occur. When sickness strikes loved ones or them, they go to pieces and wallow in self-
pity.

The spiritually mature person is able to leave everything to God and His wise providence. He lives by the
motto “Father knows best.” Not that such resignation comes easy. We read of Joseph in Egypt that the
Lord was with him and showed him mercy. But there must have been many questions in Joseph’s mind.
“Here I am in prison. Is this my reward for resisting temptation?” Yet Joseph does not collapse spiritually.
He does not become bitter and rebellious. He does not lose his faith, but keeps on trusting the Lord,
believing He will bring everything to a good end.

Such acceptance has nothing to do with stoical resignation to whatever fate has in store for us. We do not
have to suppress our feelings and refuse to let things bother us. Spiritual maturity allows us to feel pain
and experience grief and to shed tears. But it does keep us from despair and from childishly asking, “Why
me?”

5. Accepting responsibility←↰⤒🔗

Our fifth and final mark of spiritual maturity is a willingness to accept responsibility for our words and
actions. God created man as a rational being with a sense of responsibility and accountability. Maturity in
this connection means accepting our accountability toward God and man. People who never accept this
principle remain immature. Like children, they always have an excuse. They have never done anything
wrong. Someone else is always to blame: the wife, the husband, the boss at work, the minister, or the
consistory. They usually find a way to justify their actions.

It is true that this tendency to shift the blame is in our blood. That is why spiritual maturity includes a
willingness (worked by the Holy Spirit) to let God’s voice speak to us, accusing, judging, and even
condemning us, so that we end up saying with David in Psalm 51, “Against thee, thee only have I sinned,
and done this evil in thy sight.”
 This is no simple matter because there are also other competing voices that address us. Daily, we are
told by advertisements, fashion designers, and especially our own sinful hearts, “Just do it; everybody
does it; there is no harm in this; you are only human.” These voices are idols, false gods that seek our
destruction. What we need, therefore, is to hear above all these other voices, the voice of God.

One of the biggest problems facing the church today is that so few of its members seem to be hearing this
convicting voice of God. As long as we keep listening to voices that encourage greed, lust, pride,
vindictiveness, selfishness, and other vices, we can neither have a healthy personal spiritual life nor a
healthy church life.

Accepting responsibility for our actions is essential to our own well-being and that of the church. Only
when we ask ourselves to what extent have we contributed to the problems besetting the congregation
will we contribute to the solution of these problems. We won’t say, “Let the consistory fix the problem.”
Such an attitude is tantamount to saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Mature Christians know they
belong to a body, namely, the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and they the members. All the
members of that body need each other, especially when there are difficulties and tensions that threaten to
tear apart the body.

I have given five marks of spiritual maturity. No doubt there are more that could be mentioned, but these
few may suffice in helping us find out where we are in our spiritual development. Maybe the first question
we should ask ourselves is: am I a child of God at all? Yet, important as this question is, we should not
think that it is the only question we need to ask. Even if all our members were truly converted, we would
still have to face the fact that many of us seem to be without advancement in the infant stage of spiritual
life. We saw that the Apostle Paul was grieved when he realized how many believers in his day were still
immature in the faith. He took this very seriously. Do we? Is it enough of a problem for us to bring it to the
Lord in prayer, as Paul did?

Self-Examination: Or Testing Our

Response (Resonance)
o byCornelis Trimp
Self-examination is never a solitary activity. We can find a certain reciprocity in it, since it is included in a
Christian's communion with God as an intrinsic part of our continual communication with our heavenly
Master.
J. G. Woelderink (Het pastoraat rond het Heilig Avondmaal, 's-Gravenhage, 1981
(1952), p.24) Testing the resonance

Testing the resonance⤒🔗

In this book we have used the expression 'sound and resonance' metaphorically. We mentioned in this
connection a violin which, because of the resonance of its soundboard, produces its sonority and
refinement of tone. The quality of its sound and resonance depends primarily on the craftsmanship of the
builder. This much should be unquestionable. The God of all life is the builder of the human soul, is He
not? He sees to it that the heart beats and the conscience speaks.
But man is not a product of passivity nor a lifeless mechanism. Originally he was adorned with
tremendous capabilities (cf. The Canons of Dort,  III/IV, 1). God created a world that had the potential of
breaking forth in a magnificent, multiple-voiced harmony; that is, eternally praising the Almighty God.

We recognize that for many centuries God has worked on restoring the human instrument. The
potentialities of creation became the objectives of that restoration. But man's apostasy generated
innumerable distortions of the sounds. The resulting sound production became dismally discordant. On
this earth it resulted in one huge, deafening clamour, a chaotic generation of sounds that surrounds our
planet like a filthy contagion. This was the first and also the most serious environmental pollution.

We are now living in times of restoration. Ever so gradually we learn to tune in to the sounds of God's
good Word and to resonate with it. Together we are at work to learn the hymn of praise anew. God the
Holy Spirit works in us to recapture the proper resonance. This activity represents not only the privilege
that is related to the history of our lives but also its relentless struggle.

During this ongoing (restoration) process, our human responsibility has its own position and function.
God grants  us faith which will enable us to tune in to His voice and respond to it in obedience, each in his
own particular fashion.

At the same time God requires  that we have faith and make progress in our walk of faith. The claim to our
obedience of faith is an instrument the Holy Spirit employs to grant and strengthen our faith. This is one of
the mysteries of the covenant. The very obedience to God's demand is a glorious demonstration of
deliverance that is granted to us as well as a restored humanity. It is in this manner that our responsibility
receives its own position and function.

Part of this human responsibility is to test the resonance. Is there any resonance at all? And does it,
indeed, reproduce the sound properly? Is there any distressing dissonance? Can one discern the sound
of God's promise in our resonance? Is the quality of our resonance reliable or must it be drastically
rectified? How and when does the 'tuning' of the sound take place? And when does it become necessary
that we become again 'attuned' to the sound of the message?

We know that God tests our lives: our activities, thoughts and hearts. But God has made man such a
wondrous work that he is able to test himself as well. Man is able to do it, is allowed to do it, and must do
it.

This specific activity is called self-examination;  it is the human response to God's testing of our lives. The
human heart is engaged herein in the presence of God. The light of God's commandments and promises
will penetrate into our life and perform there its action of bringing to light what was hidden. Having arrived
at this point, we accept the challenge of paying closer attention to this activity of faith within the framework
of our theme.

Self-examination is difficult but indispensable←⤒🔗

Here we are entering the area of self-examination:  man considering himself together with his faith;
expectations and the way he spends his life. One may assume there will be hardly anyone who would
consider introspection an unnecessary activity. But at the same time most of us will recognise the fact that
here we are venturing out in a difficult field. The subject is a sensitive one, and the pitfalls are numerous.
We are well aware of our limitations as well as the tenacious power of our cunning hearts that enables us
to prolong our self-deception.

The longer we think about this, the more we become aware of our being perplexed by numerous
questions and problems, since an intrinsic part of self-examination requires that we take a close look
at ourselves.  This is always difficult and dangerous work. If we are not careful, we can maneuver
ourselves into unhealthy situations. In this event we may fall victim to introversion, or else we may be
tempted to use self-examination as an excuse for being engrossed in secretive soul-searching. For
lengthy periods man is quite able to put his trust in these self-made excuses. Being preoccupied with
oneself may lead to (or stem from) complacency and may contribute to false self-assurance.

But man, in his introspection, could end up just as well somewhere else. It is possible that he becomes
disgusted with himself, which can lead to self-rejection, self-negation, and in the worst scenario, self-
destruction. All kinds of psychological breakdowns may be induced this way. How often do Christians not
paint themselves into a corner during their self-examination? Oftentimes the call for self-examination will
merely boost an unhealthy preoccupation with oneself, camouflaged by religious terminology.

One person will emerge from his self-examination, swollen with pride and self-satisfaction. In his search
he managed to uncover the marks of grace in his own religiosity. And from here on he will use his findings
as a license to sit in judgement on his fellow believers.

Another person, as a result of his self-examination, was cast down into deepest despair. While delving
into his own conscience and tampering with his motivation for living, he ran into an endless number of
conflicts with his conscience. An immense weariness, brought about by a never-ending attempt to live
scrupulously, could (like dark clouds) for years on end intercept the sunlight which God in His grace
shines upon the lives of His people.

For each of God's promises, a "yes, but..." response was kept in readiness. In his attempt to lead a
conscientious life, man with all his groaning and sighing, may well spend more attention on himself than
on his relationship with God. A super-conscience is ultimately a form of pretentiousness.  And such a vain
glorious display of finickiness does not exactly testify to the freedom to which Christ has delivered us.
Although much more could be said along these lines, the above should suffice to convince us of the
troubles and dangers associated with introspection.

But we should add that the neglect of self-examination is at least as dangerous. If we were to avoid self-
examination or reject it explicitly, we would oppose God's clear commandment (cf. Lam 3:40; Gal 6:4; 1
Cor 11:28-31; 2 Cor 13:5; also Mat 7:3; 1 Jn 3:20, 21). He who opposes the commandment of God
makes it difficult for himself. For this commandment delivers us from ourselves and instructs us to look
outside of ourselves. And so it points out the way which God's people may walk, onwards to the day of
Christ.

There are many people who, driven by their anxieties, always run away from themselves. They do not
have the courage to look at themselves in the mirror of self-examination. They are afraid of the silences in
their lives and try to silence the voice of their conscience by means of compulsive and restless activities.
Life will then become one great hoax which, in fact, lacks the 'fear of the Lord.' For this 'fear of the
Lord' includes also respecting and honouring the Father, Who "judges each man's work impartially" (1 Pet
1:17). In this case the refusal of self-examination demonstrates the restlessness of a life on the run. Or
else it illustrates the spiritual apathy of living superficial lives. At any rate, unfounded peace of mind,
pseudo-assurance, and compulsive activism are as disastrous for the style of living before God as the
 incidence of pathological anxiety or religious pride would be. Briefly then, there are all kinds of valid
reasons to reflect on the difficult and indispensable issue of self-examination.

Making clear distinctions is necessary←⤒🔗

In his self-examination the child of God tests the quality of his faith. This could also be stated as: he
examines his faith for its being 'true'. In this connection we can say that the trustworthiness of faith shows
three aspects. To distinguish between them appears to be (as so many other distinctions) somewhat
artificial. In regular life the boundaries between them tend to overlap.

Despite all this, it is useful to begin by putting the distinctions up front. They can help us in our search for
clarity in the difficult subject matter we are about to discuss.

The trustworthiness of faith confronts us with the reality of:

1. a faith that is counterfeit

2. a faith that is illusory
3. a faith that is dead.

1. There is a true faith which is worked in our hearts by the (proclaimed) Word of God's
truth, thanks to the life-giving working of the Holy Spirit (cf. The Heidelberg
Catechism, Answer 20; Question and Answer 21). This true faith stands over against a
counterfeit faith, caused by short-changing the teachings of Christ, twisting the Word, and
false prophesy.
What we are talking about here is, therefore, the substance of faith. The world proclaims
theories that are completely unreliable. The images that played a role in the worship
services of years past were the work of man's hands. Likewise, there are at the present
time ideas in circulation that have been produced by people and devils, ideas that are
presented to the public to be worshipped. In our world the Church has to fight at this level
for the preservation of true faith (cf. Jude 3vv).
Self-examination is concerned with the trustworthiness of one's faith with reference to its
substance. The child of God examines whether he possesses in his life true knowledge of
God in Christ. He asks himself whether in his life he truly trusts in the Lord and His faithful
promises. For he lives trusting that he shall never be deceived in God's promises. After all,
this is the living God, Truth personified (cf. Jer 10:10). God's child has the privilege of
having a living, personal bond with this God. Thus he tests himself to find out whether he,
indeed, possesses a true, reliable knowledge of God, and also what in his life should be
identified as areas of neglected upkeep.

2. 'Truth' is not exclusively a matter of being 'genuine' but certainly also of being
upright. In the life of a believer there should be no false appearances, no self-deception, nor
deceiving God or one's neighbour. Whoever subscribes to the truth should do so
wholeheartedly (cf. Ps 15:2). In this case we are concerned with resisting activities which
(from a distance) appear to be activities of faith, but are not in reality.
When the Church regularly warns against the powers of custom (e.g. in the form for
Baptism which mentions "custom or superstition") the routine habit that is being referred to
is viewed as the opposite of an 'upright faith'.
In the poorly illuminated corners of their lives, believers are able to detect contrasts in their
 self-examination. In their lives the 'illusion' of faith can display itself in all kinds of different
forms and proportions, although in this case we do not have to resort to using the loaded
word 'hypocrisy'. But before God and man it is possible that certain elements of hypocrisy,
nonetheless, persist so that they will taint the transparent truth of faith. The decisive factor
here is that, in our faith activities, both uprightness and purity of heart will together be
tested for their truthfulness.

3. The Scriptures speak to us about the danger of a 'dead' faith, specifically in James
2:14-26. True faith is "expressing itself through love" (Gal 5:6), and proves thereby its
strength. And in this context 'truth' stands over against emptiness. The meaning of 'truth' is
here, moreover, that the claim of being genuine will indeed be verified as such. Here, the
connotations of the word 'truth' point towards activity, constancy, reliability and efficacy.
'Truth' is the element that will never let us down. This is why it is possible for us to enact
the truth (cf. 1 Jn 1:6; 2:4vv.; 3:18).
If in the practice of our lives no fruit of faith ever becomes visible, then this unproductive -
ness would reveal that the root is unhealthy. Should fruit be found, however, this would
prove that our faith is viable. Faith will be tried and shows itself as having been tried, 1fore-
most by way of self-examination. The evidence of faith that has been tried (the capability of
bearing up under the test) will generate hope and increase our assurance of faith. This is
what the formulation of Answer 86 of The Heidelberg Catechism points out, namely "that
we ourselves may be assured of our faith by its fruits."

So far, we have looked, from three different angles, at our thoughts on self-examination. To put it
somewhat academically, we might say that in doing so we simultaneously investigate the trustworthiness
of faith

a. that we believe in
b. with which we give praise
c. that works through love.

The usefulness of these fairly theoretical distinctions lies in an attempt to improve the clarity of our
thinking about these matters. Our thinking and speaking about these things have often been confused,
because proper distinctions were not made. Frequently, the arguments got mixed up or bypassed each
other, since those involved in the debate were actually not discussing the same subject matter. The great
debate about 'self-examination' dating back to the latter years of the Thirties offers sufficient proof for this.
But even though nobody contested the need for self-examination (or self-trial), 2there was in the debates
on this subject still a considerable amount of talk about this subject, though on different wave lengths.
This can be illustrated by a substantial example.

C. Veenhof, a prominent participant in the debate of those years, declared one day that it is unnatural and
unhealthy to be preoccupied with the function of the eye when one is seeing beautiful things. The object
observed makes us forget about the seeing organ  itself, as it were. The very fact that one is able to see
so many beautiful things makes (in many cases) an examination of the eye rather redundant. Faith is
much like an eye that looks outward and not inward.

This view was countered by referring to Answer 86 of The Heidelberg Catechism as well as the Form for
the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, both of which explicitly oblige us to examine ourselves.

What has, so far, been the outcome of this and similar debates?
1. Veenhof was concerned with testing the trustworthiness of faith with which one
believes (we refer to our distinction made under 2, above).
2. Veenhof was keenly aware of the unhealthy character of various kinds of
introspection. It is possible to be so preoccupied with the eye's condition that there is no
time left to really see things, while so much remains to be seen. The more the radiance of
God's promises is warming the heart, the more assured man becomes of God's salvation. In
this case there is no need to talk lengthily about the 'seeing organ.
3. At face value this reasoning appears to be valid, but at the same time it is
incomplete. To put it in our own terminology: it can be seen that the argument attacks the
necessity of our distinction (under) 2 with the arguments offered under distinction 1. Of
course, there are occasions on which one should take a look at one's eyes, or have them
professionally examined. The organ might be defective. A person is able to imagine that he
truly sees accurately, whereas in reality he is merely turning around within his own little
world. His eye does not truly observe what is shown to him; rather it projects his own pre-
conceived ideas into the observed object. Despite all this, there remains a justifiable self-
examination of faith.
4. Veenhof pointed out correctly — as did D. van Dijk, for instance — that it is futile to
dig up certain attributes of faith by means of self-analysis, and then use them as a basis for
assurance of faith.
Assurance of faith lies anchored in the truth of God's promises. This dogma has always been
advanced in the struggle against all sorts and varieties of pietistic soul-searching.
For whoever wants to fight against misgivings concerning the trustworthiness of his faith, or
else the uncertainty regarding the truth of his faith, and tries to do this with the marks one
has uncovered in himself, will in the end have to repeat this process all over again. This is
because he will now have to fight against his misgivings (respectively the same uncertainty)
regarding the trustworthiness of the very marks that were uncovered. For even in this
process a man can hoodwink himself. A cunning heart is unable to deliver itself from its own
craftiness. What happens here is that self-examination threatens to become a vicious circle.
This circle can only be broken through by the sound doctrine of the covenant. In this case,
self-examination takes as its point of departure the promise which God has given us; i.e.
God has adopted us as His children and heirs. Genuine, sound self-examination is concerned
with the question whether we, in the practice of our daily living, are conducting ourselves as
children of God. This much for the train of thought of (amongst others) Veenhof and van
Dijk.
5. The series of arguments that were advanced, presented us with a good number of
sound and healthful observations. Even so, we detect here a merging of different subjects,
and the ensuing confusion can be readily cleared up with the assistance of the distinctions
we made above.

Members of the congregation whose pattern of living closely resembles the description in The Canons of
Dort, I, 16, are usually not particularly impressed by these arguments. The difficulties regarding the 'truth'
under point 2 were once more fought with arguments regarding the 'truth' as defined under 1 and 3. For
there will always be people "who do not yet clearly discern in themselves a living faith in Christ, an
assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God
through Christ."

Then there are "others (who) seriously desire to be converted to God ... Yet they cannot reach that point
on the way of godliness and faith" before the Lord "which they would like."  In this part of our Reformed
confession these people are not advised to disregard self-examination (but should "clearly discern in
themselves").
Together with their self-examination they are to use the means of grace faithfully (cf. The Canons of
Dort, III/IV, 17), and meanwhile, in all reverence and humility, they should "fervently desire a time of more
abundant grace."

Although the trustworthiness of God's promise implies the trustworthiness of faith (considered
normatively), yet we find that in every-day life, this faith will experience its own measured growth process
towards assurance. This, too, is the work of God's grace, and therefore it merits special attention during
the self-examination of God's child.

The debate of the late 'Thirties' served a useful purpose as the first major confrontation with our own
Reformed tradition concerning self-examination. But it is precisely for this reason that the debate should
be considered as an inception of the dialogue, not as its final conclusion.

Those who fight against subjectivism are pursuing a worthy cause. But at the same time they should arm
themselves against objectivism. When this course of action is ignored, a specific question may be solved
while at the same time and other one will be brought up. This procedure, too, sets up a vicious circle.
Briefly, this reality provides ample reason for us to further reflect on these subjects.

Self-examination while preparing for the Lord's Supper←⤒🔗

In accordance with The Canons of Dort's line of reasoning on the use of the means of grace, we affirm
that it is specifically the Lord's Supper that comes to our aid on this issue. The Scrip tures tell us this in 1
Corinthians 11:28-31, and the Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper expounds the subject of self-
examination rather extensively.

The instructional part of this form holds forth two subjects: a. our self-examination and b. the
remembrance of Christ. It will become self-evident that in our approach to this subject we must pay close
attention to this instruction.

Throughout the centuries the Reformed churches have raised the matter of self-examination (in all its
various aspects) as it relates to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. While preparing for the Lord's
Supper we are confronted with the need for self-examination.

The first question that arises in this context is: why specifically at that particular time? The form tells us
that we, according to Scripture, must examine ourselves beforehand,  as we can read in 1 Corinthians
11:28 ("A man ought to examine himself"). In this connection we speak about 'preparation' for the Lord's
Supper. And for centuries it has been customary to use the term 'preparatory sermon' the Sunday before
the celebration.3

The question can be asked whether this attention (or rather this expression  of attention) preceding the
celebration of the Lord's Supper is, indeed, warranted. In the past this question was raised as well, and
more than once it was answered in the negative. Most often the argument that is put forward will go along
these lines: it takes exception to the 'different' treatment accorded to the Sunday of the Lord's Supper.
Next, the question is asked: Why must the congregation be called upon to examine itself specifically for
the Lord's Supper? Do we not each Sunday again appear in the presence of the Lord? Consequently,
each Sunday calls for self-examination as referred to in Psalm 15. Admittedly, there is some truth in this
objection, but it does not give us the whole truth.
Should Israel not be happy every day because God had delivered them from the power of the archenemy,
Egypt? Still, Pascha was celebrated only once a year, with all the traditional festive activities that came
with it. Besides, are we not giving thanks every morning anew for life we received out of God's hand? Yet,
we celebrate our birthday only once a year, dress up for the occasion and treat our guests. The point is
that if each day were a festive day, we would never celebrate. We are simply unable to bring this off;
moreover, life is not like that at all.

Every day we enjoy our national freedom. But on the fifth day of May (i.e. in the Netherlands) we hang out
the flag. It is rather unnecessary to inquire why May 5 is more important than all the other 364 days of the
year. Without the other 364 days the celebration on May 5 would be pointless. But without the Fifth of
May celebrations we would lose sight of our privileged circumstances and just rush headlong each one of
us on his own business. In this event, even though we would still have our freedom, we are no
longer celebrating  it. And then we will neither ask ourselves the question: what have we actually done
with our freedom?

As a result, all the other days of the year, too, are robbed of their lustre. In the Old Testament we find that
the Lord gave numerous statutes and observances to Israel: laws, rituals, and feasts. In this way life was
taking on depth and perspective, and thus it resisted becoming superficial. At the same time, as long as
this clearly defined situation was sustained, it provided a means of discipline to walk in godliness. On
more than one occasion we can read in a similar context: "so that they (the people) may learn to revere
me  (all the days) and not forget the things their eyes have seen  (cf. Deut 4:9, 10; 6:24; 10:12-20; 14:23).
A remembrance feast ought to renew both thankfulness and expectation. When this happens, it is as if
the instruments are being tuned again.

The celebration helps us likewise by having us engage in holy exercises of godliness. Thus our Sunday
observance takes place within the framework of the seven weekdays, and the celebration of the Lord's
Supper within the framework of our Sundays. Of course, it is possible that a person (because of
complacency or self-justification) does neither participate in the worship services on those Sundays-with-
out-celebration. Yet, also in this instance one will have to face God.

Still, the Sunday of the celebration of the Lord's Supper has something extra to offer. God comes to us in
His Word, in the bread and the wine. Christ presents Himself and gives Himself in a special manner. We,
too, become more active ourselves, renew our profession of faith and, together with our brothers and
sisters join at the table of the Son of God. Those who pay respect to their Host and the guests, will dress
up for the occasion (cf. the 'wedding clothes' of Matthew 22:11).

Since the Israelites prepared for Pascha with the big spring clean-up (removal of any trace of old leaven
from their homes) so will we examine ourselves in preparation for the — Lord's Supper. This is not to say
that we, otherwise, would never have done this. But on this particular occasion we do it very consciously
(and collectively) with a view to that specific meeting with Christ and one another at the table which He
instituted "on the night when He was betrayed."

The meaning of the celebration of the Lord's Supper is that we steadfastly look upon Christ. We
commemorate how He sacrificed Himself for our sake. But, looking upon Christ is evidently a powerful
motivation for taking a deliberate look at ourselves.  The Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper
addresses us directly and asks of us that we remember, believe, search our hearts, examine our
conscience, consider our sins and shortcomings.  At the very moment that we are thankful for and
amazed by God's love in Christ, we are called upon to become involved with ourselves and to exam ine
ourselves on various vital points. The question arises how a person should go about this and for what
purpose. Further, whether he needs no help, or is unable to get any help. With a view to these questions
it would not only be useful but also appropriate to pay attention to what history teaches us.
 The lesson of history←⤒🔗

In the days when the Church was still a captive of Roman rites and practices, the clergy provided specific
guidance to prepare people for 'communion' or the 'eucharist'. This communion was as a rule the one that
was held on Easter Sunday. This was preceded by the compulsory 'sacrament' of the confessional during
the weeks before.4The confessional provided contact between a member of the congregation and his
church official (the father confessor). During this meeting it was not only sins and trespasses that were
talked about but also the atonement and satisfaction made for these sins. To serve as a guide there were
confessional books in circulation which listed all kinds of sins in categories. It is possible to say more
about this topic, not only the bad but a few positive things as well.

This is, however, not our intent here. What concerns us now is the question what the Reformation has
done with the traditional confessional.

Obviously, in an attempt to get our answers, we should first of all take a look at the elector ate of the Paltz
(Germany). For here originated our old church book (with our present Form for the Celebration of the
Lord's Supper).5In 1563 there appeared in this German electorate a church order where we find the
following:

1. the Form for the Baptism of Infants;

2. the Heidelberg Catechism;
3. a treatise on preparing oneself for the Lord's Supper;
4. the Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper;
5. the remainder of the forms.6

Under point 3 we read the following stipulations:

o Whenever the celebration of the Lord's Supper is scheduled to take place, the pastor
is to announce this event eight days prior to the celebration. This rule would enable the
congregation to prepare itself for the celebration.
o Children who are going to celebrate the Lord's Supper for the first time, are to be
instructed by their parents.
o The Saturday before the celebration, the congregation shall meet to prepare itself. At
this time the significance of the Lord's Supper shall be examined in a suitable sermon. Rel-
evant portions of the Catechism pertaining to the Lord's Supper should be read, and the
procedure for the celebration shall be explained.
o Subsequently, those whose intention it is to celebrate the Lord's Supper for the first
time are to present themselves to make profession of their faith. An examination is to take
place in order to test their knowledge concerning the Apostolicum, the Decalogue, and the
Lord's Prayer, as well as the catechism text pertaining to the Lord's Supper.
o After this, the entire congregation is to be addressed in an interrogative fashion, the
essence of which will be three elaborate questions. The first question deals with the
knowledge of one's misery: do you confess that you abhor yourself? The second question
concerns the justification through the blood of Christ, as attested to by baptism and the
Lord's Supper. The third question probes the desire to live a life of thankfulness before God
and in peace with one's neighbour. Each of these questions was to be answered with a
collective affirmative.
In closing this service, all the participants kneeled down for the corporate prayer. Afterwards, there was
opportunity to receive additional instruction or have a private talk.

This is the way it used to be in the Palatinate electorate on Saturdays before the Lord's Supper. No doubt,
the reader will have noticed that the three questions follow the pattern of the three parts of The
Heidelberg Catechism  (i.e. our misery, deliverance, and thankfulness). The same tripartite approach can
be found in the Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, which the Dutch churches adopted from
the Palatinate version.7

This was the procedure of the churches in the cities of the Palatinate, once every month (as well as on
the feast days of Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas). Confessing the congregation's debt, its faith, and its
love was done corporately as was praying. It should be apparent by now that in this way each member
possessed now an outline for self-examination. Though in the Reformed churches the confessional with
the father confessor was discontinued, other significant things took its place.

The Dutch churches did not follow the example of the Palatinate tradition regarding the Saturday
preparation.8In this context we notice a different line that made its way into the Netherlands: i. e  the line
from Geneva. In that city the confessional was replaced by the personal talk of the office bearers with the
members of the congregation. This discussion did not take place in the church building but at the home of
the members. And so it came about that we (still) call it a home visit.

But from its very beginning the focus of the home visit was on the celebration of the Lord's Supper. And
for that reason the format of the visit dealt with knowledge of our unworthiness and God's grace, and a
Christian style of living in thankfulness.

When we say: home visit,  the elder  comes into view. And rightly so, for he functions in particular on the
way of God's people to the Lord's Supper. From 1568 to 1978 our Church Order (the Netherlands) stated
that the work of the elders during their home visits is characterized by its being directed towards the
celebration of the Lord's Supper. From this we may conclude that the Reformed churches aimed to give
guidance to self-examination as well (within the context of the celebration of the Lord's Supper), and to
this by means of preaching, preparation, 9in addition to the home visits and formal disciplinary calls.
Altogether, this provides a framework within which personal self-examination (as indicated in the Form for
the Celebration for the Lord's Supper) is able to find its rightful place.

The function of self-examination as set forth in the Form for

the Celebration of the Lord's Supper←⤒🔗

The very fact that self-examination is pertinent to the celebration of the Lord's Supper 10excludes
beforehand any idea as though the object would be to submerge ourselves in soul searching, or to
revolve around ourselves. As we all know, the Lord's Supper is about our meeting with the Son of God,
the Christ of Golgotha.

The act of descending into oneself, or introspection, does not in inherently link it with Christian faith. The
self-knowledge one tries to gain in this manner can lead to complacence or self-denial, pride or
desperation. But in both cases this road to self-knowledge has nothing to do with Christian faith in the
presence of God.11
First of all, self-examination in the context of the celebration of the Lord's Supper signifies that  we take a
look at ourselves, while standing before the crucified Christ. In this event we are dealing with self-knowl-
edge that is founded in the knowledge of God. Someone who does not know God the Father of Jesus
Christ the crucified, has no self-knowledge either. But the correlative is also true: he who does not know
himself as an incapacitated debtor, is unable to truly love God, the Father of the crucified Christ. Both
manifestations of knowledge are correlated. When one of them languishes, both of them will waste away.
This is a profound mystery in a Christian's life before the face of God.

The believer, then, examines his heart while standing before the crucified Christ. This means that he sees
the Man of Sorrows, Who died a "bitter and shameful death on the cross."  He looks at the exhausted,
utterly spent form of the Man of Sorrows and in Him he sees himself.  From Golgotha the call comes down
to him: "Ecce Homo", i.e. "See the Man."  Strictly speaking, the exhortation reaching us from Calvary's
cross is "See yourself"

Do you really see the tortured, condemned man, forsaken by God? It is our sicknesses, our sins, and our
sorrows which He bears. This is the terrifying deficit on the balance sheet of our lives. This is the bottom
line of the worth of our lives: total bankruptcy. This is what we must contemplate, because this is the
wrath of God on our sins: this is the 'condemnation'. At that very moment we shall realise our oneness
with humanity. For God's wrath rests upon the sins of the whole human race.

We must not search for something that we just might have overlooked here, or some shortcoming there,
as so often happened during the fragmentary practice of the confessional. Together we acknowledge that
we are worthy to stand condemned before God, since we have been sold under sin, its power and
dominion (cf Rom 7:14 KJV).

Christ broke that power by His indescribable and unfailing love and obedience. He was willing to take our
place and bear the wrath of God. God did not spare  His Son, quite the contrary. But in Christ's sufferings
we discern our existence before God's face. In this way the Lord's Supper trains us in the fear of the Lord.
Everything that comes our way in terms of life and future, Christ merited for us on Golgotha. From such
great distress we were delivered and led out into the light, we who dwell in the midst of death (cf. 1 Pet
18, 19). It is the light of God's Law that makes us discover our misery to its very details and makes us
understand what happened on Golgotha. At the Lord's Supper we feel ourselves deeply humiliated, and
from this condition arises the deep tone that will characterize both our lives and hymns of praise before
God.

When the sonorous bass notes of our response are missing, life will deteriorate into superfici ality,
complacency, and pride. It is precisely self-examination which keeps us from getting trapped in the
absurdity of 'cheap grace'.

In the second place, there is still more to be considered in the matter of self-examination. The Form for
the Celebration of the Lord's Supper specifies that "everyone (should) search his heart whether he also
believes the sure promise of God that all his sins are forgiven him only for the sake of the suffering and
death of Jesus Christ and that the perfect righteousness of Christ is freely given him as his own, as if he
himself had fulfilled all righteousness."

We are not asked to examine whether our faith is the best it can possibly be. For quite often faith is a
challenged matter, in that it resembles a flickering candle light rather than a steadily burning light. 12We are
asked whether we have seen and accepted God's most benevolent promises in our lives. Justification,
acquittal, the obedience of Christ and the sufficiency of His righteousness — all these are included in
God's promise in which God desires to be God-for-us.13
 Our God is a consuming fire: no better place to see this than on Golgotha. Yet, notwith standing this blaze
He wants to be our God. The God of justice is also the God of love, and this is and remains the essence
of the gospel. While looking upon Christ, we are to examine ourselves and bring to light whether or not
the promise is the be-all and the end-all in our life and death. Over against all opposing voices and
temptations, we must converge thought and heart on that very gospel and learn to look beyond ourselves
so that we will put our trust in the gospel. And so room is made for the hymn of praise for the Lamb of
God, that takes away the sins of the world.

In the third place, standing before Christ, everyone should ask himself if he is willing and longing with all
his being to serve God and walk all his days uprightly before His face. This is the language of the
covenant as found in Genesis 17:1, which spells out how to walk before the Lord. As certain as the
promise of Genesis 17 lies firmly anchored in the reconciling work of Christ and is fulfilled by the Holy
Spirit, so certain is also our 'walking before God's face' which conduct, since the event on Golgotha, has
become a life in the light of God's love, which in Christ has been revealed to its full extent (Jn 13:1).

In using this formulation, the Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper has warded off the danger of
having the celebration turn into a rite outside the bounds of every-day life. We are asked whether the
knowledge of Christ renews our love to serve God. We are to question ourselves whether we find within
us a heartfelt joy in the Law of God (our 'conscience'). This question concerns the specific resonance of
our heart.

The Form makes everything even more specific and plain by obliging us to investigate whether we wish to
live with our neighbour "in true love and unity" and lay aside "all enmity, hatred and envy."

Thus we are confronted with the two great commandments of God's Law. And so we are given the
privilege of living as renewed people of God in the midst of our society. On more than one occasion we
have paid our solemn vow in answer to these questions, for instance during our public profession of faith.
But at each celebration of the Lord's Supper we renew this vow.

When we are thus enabled to discern the function of self-examination before partaking of the Lord's
Supper, it will become apparent just how much this mode of preparation will purify our lives. The
foundation of faith becomes visible again and all sorts of hindering encrustations (such as routine, habit,
misunderstanding and doubt) will be removed. Advancing towards us from that single cross are the three
parts of doctrine (cf. The Heidelberg Catechism,  Question and Answer 2):

o in ourselves we are unable to live before God;

o in spite of this we may live with God;
o and, in truth , we wish again to live for God, although we do stumble but rise up
again. And we shall continue to do so, until it becomes second nature for all of us to love
God and our neighbour. This second nature will then become our own nature, and so is
achieved the full resonance.

Some conclusions←⤒🔗

The object of self-examination is to test faith for its trustworthiness. The concern here is about the
content, the activity, and the effectuality of faith. By now it should have become evident that self-
examination is not possible with one's back turned towards God. It is unthinkable that this self-
examination can be performed in isolation or with the help of a neutral agent.
The examination takes place while we stand before and look upon Christ. It removes useless ideas from
our faith. It purifies our heart from its inclination toward hypocrisy, and it frees us from lingering laxity in
our service to God and man.

Psycho-analysis of faith activity (involved in uncovering marks of trustworthiness) is therefore as fruitless

and meaningless as would be self-analysis with reference to the one and only 'love', when one is not even
acquainted with the beloved one, and one is even less able to envisage her. Similarly, abstract faith does
not exist and can therefore not be analyzed. 14At issue here is, specifically, faith in Christ, the crucified and
exalted Lord.

A husband who always doubts whether he really loves his wife, cannot be cured by referring him to the
marriage vows or the obligation that comes with marriage. Before taking a good look at himself, he had
better take a good look at his wife. Doing this, he will readily find out whether he is trapped in self-love or
has been unfaithful to his wife, or whether his emotional life is unhealthy. 15

Theories about objective characteristics are of no help here. Nor would it be helpful if self-examination
were to furnish positive proof that one possesses a strong faith. Irrespective of the question how the
validity of a diagnosis is arrived at, it should be pointed out that it is not the vigor of our act of faith that
provides the trust, assurance, and makes us persevere in faith. It is only the trustworthiness of God's
promise that provides our lives with stability. Our faith does nothing else but receiving this promise and
making room for it in our lives.

Faith that believes in itself is a lonely and fruitless affair. Besides, it is an egocentric and illicit happening.
Furthermore, hypocrisy is not cured by self-examination but by conversion. He who does not fear God,
will neither honour Him by means of self-examination. And he who spurns self-examination, does not fear
God.

Pentecost and True Spirituality

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

What is spirituality, true spirituality? What is it that makes a person genuinely “spiritual”? How do you
recognize such a person? How can you tell if you are spiritual?

Ours is a time very much preoccupied with questions like these. Oprah Winfrey’s great popularity is
apparently explained in large part because she has convinced many that she has found true
spirituality—by freeing herself, she believes, from her repressive Christian upbringing—and she is
ready to share with you how you can find it for yourself.

The interest of screen star Richard Gere and others in the Dalai Lama runs much deeper than a
concern for the freedom and political rights of the Tibetan people. Many are drawn to him as a
religious leader because they believe he embodies and knows the way to authentic spirituality.

When we inquire into the specifics of contemporary claims like these, the answers forthcoming tend
to be fairly vague, but a couple of things come through quite clearly: spirituality is personal and
it’s plural. I must find it within me and I must find it for myself.

For Christians, who trust in Christ as their Savior and Lord, and who believe the Bible is God’s Word,
it shouldn’t be hard to point out what is flawed and fundamentally wrong with so much current
spirituality. It reflects the religious relativism and pluralism of our day, with its adamant aversion to
the Bible’s teaching on spirituality.

The Bible is unmistakably clear about two fundamental spiritual realities. First, all human beings are
sinners, in fact so hopelessly sinful, so inexcusably guilty and helplessly corrupt, as to be
spiritually dead. Second, Jesus Christ, because of what he has done in his life, death, and
resurrection, is the only Savior of sinners able to deliver us from our sin and its consequences. He
and he alone is able to make us spiritually alive.

Still, a nearly unending flood of literature continues to exhibit a confusing welter of claims and
counterclaims. The result is this disconcerting state of affairs: the one Holy Spirit of God, given to
unify the church, has become an occasion for tension and division within the church.

What is the solution to this distressing situation? Is there one? There is. Notice what I did not say
just above. I didn’t say the Spirit is the source or cause of division among Christians about his work
and gifts. The source of that discord lies elsewhere. It comes from not listening to the Spirit.

But where can I hear what the Spirit has to say, and how can I know for sure it’s the Spirit I’m
hearing? The answer to that crucial question does not come from any person or church claiming to
speak with final authority for or about the Spirit. Nor is it found in my or anyone else’s experience of
the Spirit.

Rather, the answer—the only answer—is, in that memorable phrase, “the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scriptures” (WCF 1.10). The Bible alone is God-breathing today, from beginning to end, because of
its unique, “God-breathed” origin in the past (2 Tim. 3:16). It is the only certain and infallibly reliable
voice of the Spirit for the church today on all matters that pertain to Christian faith and life, including
those that concern the Spirit and his work. We learn of the Spirit and his work only as we listen, first
and last, to the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10–14). We discover what are to be our expectations of his work in
our lives only as, in possession of the Bible, we are armed with “the sword of the Spirit, which is the
word of God” (Eph. 6:17) and are exposed to that penetrating Spirit-sword as it, “living and active,”
addresses us at the core of our being and in our deepest concerns (Heb. 4:12).

But what about Christian experience of the Spirit? Doesn’t that count for something? Of course it
does. But neither my experience nor yours nor any other Christian’s is the definitive source for
settling our understanding and determining our expectations of the Spirit’s work in our lives. That
source is Scripture and Scripture alone, rightly understood. Our experience is essential, but only as it
corroborates that teaching by conforming to it.

The Gift of the Spirit

No doubt there is more than one way to go about briefly examining the Bible’s teaching on the work
of the Holy Spirit. One, however, we should not adopt, though it is widely followed today, particularly
in Pentecostal and other charismatic circles. That approach focuses on the book of Acts, in particular
on accounts there of baptism with the Holy Spirit and instances of tongues-speaking, prophesying,
and miracle working. These accounts are then read as providing models to be replicated in the
experience of Christians today.

That approach misses the primary purpose of Acts, which is indicated in 1:8, “But you will receive
power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in
all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The “you” in verse 8 refers to  the apostles, that
is, those who were set apart to be Christ’s authoritative witnesses, primarily to his resurrection
(verses 20–26). Accordingly, the promise of verse 8 expresses a program of apostolic activity that
includes others in the church associated with them. The rest of Acts describes the ongoing
realization and completion of this apostolic program.

An overall purpose of Acts, in other words, is to document an apostolic agenda that has

been completed: the apostolic spread of the gospel, the extension of the church, from “Jerusalem …
to the ends of earth” (Rome). Acts describes the expanding scope, through the apostles, of this
church-building gospel from Jew (Jerusalem-Judea) to half-Jew (Samaria) to non-Jew (the Gentile
ends of the earth). Their activity signals the universality of God’s saving purpose, as the
proclamation of the promised salvation fulfilled in Christ spreads from one nation, Israel, to all
nations.

This aspect of the apostles’ activity is captured graphically in Ephesians 2:19–22, where Paul
pictures the church as a building under construction. In a context (verses 11–18) where the
universality of salvation and the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ effected by the gospel is again
prominent, the apostles (and prophets), with Christ as the cornerstone, constitute the foundation of
the one church-house that God is constructing in the period between Christ’s ascension and his
return.

This house, in other words, is a historical model. The laying of the apostolic-prophetic foundation of
the church-house is complete. It is not an ongoing activity that continues to the present. Nor does it
have to be relaid periodically (assuming, as we must, that God, its master architect-builder, knows
what he’s doing!). As the work of Christ, the foundation-cornerstone (see 1 Cor. 3:11), is completed,
unrepeatable, and noncontinuing, so also is the foundational role of the apostles. Answering to the
once-for-all, finished work of Christ is the once-for-all, finished witness of the apostles to that saving
work and its implications. The church today is in its postapostolic period when, in terms of Paul’s
model, its superstructure is being erected, an ongoing activity until Christ returns that rests firmly on
the building’s finished, well-laid, Christ-centered, and apostolic foundation.

Acts, then, is not an open-ended chronicling of loosely chosen episodes from the earliest days of the
church’s history for our emulation today. Acts is not amenable to an added chapter 29 to complete
the narrative it presumably leaves unfinished. Rather, it ends where Luke intended, with the
completion of the worldwide apostolic task he set out to document. Notice in this regard that Paul is
aware that through his ministry as “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13), the gospel is being
spread “in the whole world,” “in all creation” (Col. 1: 5–6, 23).

The Significance of Pentecost

What about Pentecost then? If the experience of the apostles and the others present with them
described in Acts 2 doesn’t provide a model or pattern to be sought and replicated in the lives of
Christians subsequently until Christ returns, what is the significance of what happened on that day?

Though occurring near the beginning of Acts, Pentecost is clearly the high point of the book as a
whole, of the entire history that Luke narrates. Why? Pentecost has this climactic prominence
because the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5)—also described as the “pouring out” or “sending”
of the Spirit (2:33; Luke 24:49)—completes the once-for-all work of Christ. The importance of
Pentecost is nothing less than this.

We miss the point of Pentecost if we focus on the experience of those who were present and its
assumed potential as a model for our own, no matter how striking and memorable that experience
undoubtedly was. Pentecost is much more important than their experience. Without what took place
then, the work of Christ on earth would have been unfinished.
This importance may be seen from a couple of related angles in Luke-Acts. In Acts 1:5, Jesus looks
both forward and backward by connecting his promise that soon the apostles will be baptized with
the Spirit, a promise that we know was fulfilled on Pentecost, with the ministry of John the Baptist
marked by his water baptism.

The opening verses of Luke 3 summarize John’s ministry by capturing what was central in it and
defining it as a whole. Verses 15–17 recount a comparison John made in response to the crowd’s
question whether he was the Messiah. In that comparison, baptism is the common denominator that
highlights the difference between the ministries of John and the coming Messiah. But why does
baptism serve as the basis of comparison? Because a baptizing activity is a basic index of each
ministry. “I am not the Messiah,” John says in effect. “I am but the forerunner, the one who prepares
for the Messiah’s imminent coming. Accordingly, my baptism is with water; it is only a sign, a pointer.
In contrast, the Messiah’s baptism, a basic index of his ministry, will be with the Holy Spirit and fire.
That baptism is the reality to which my ministry, marked by water baptism, points.”

In this passage, then, John surveys the ministry of Christ as a whole, and at its heart, as central as
anything else, is baptism with the Holy Spirit. From this perspective, Christ’s work on earth,
culminating in the cross as the atonement for the sins of those he came to save, is properly seen as
one large effort to secure for them, and give to them, the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is what Christ
did for his people on the day of Pentecost. There is nothing subsidiary or secondary about what
happened at Pentecost; it was no mere “second blessing.” The baptism with the Spirit that took
place then is a matter of first order, primary blessing, blessing integral to the salvation Christ came to
accomplish. Without that baptism, that gift, Christ’s work for our salvation would not be complete.

These reflections on John the Baptist’s revelation concerning Jesus are reinforced by Peter in his
sermon on the day of Pentecost. As that preaching draws to its close, he affirms climactically, “This
Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of
God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that
you yourselves are seeing and hearing” (Acts 2:32–33). Four events are linked here: Jesus’
resurrection (revealing the saving efficacy of his messianic ministry culminating in the cross, verses
22–31), his ascension, his reception of the Spirit from the Father, and his outpouring of the Spirit at
Pentecost.

Clearly these events are inseparable; any one only occurred with the others either having already
taken place or in view. Together, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, reception of the Spirit in the
ascension, and Pentecost constitute a single complex of events. Pentecost is no more capable of
being repeated in individual Christian experience than Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension
are capable of such repetition.

Despite a widespread misconception, Pentecost does not bring a fundamentally new or different
experience of the Spirit. The differences in experiencing the Spirit between Old Testament believers
and New Testament Christians are real and important, but no more than comparative: richer or
greater or fuller for the latter. Rather, the newness of the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost
resides primarily in two related considerations. First, the Spirit is finally present because Christ’s
work of accomplishing salvation has been completed. The Spirit that came at Pentecost, fulfilling the
promise of the Father, is the Spirit of the now-glorified Christ (“the Spirit was not yet given, because
Jesus was not yet glorified,” John 7:39 NASB); he is the eschatological Spirit. Second, the Spirit that
came at Pentecost is the Spirit poured out on all flesh. The people of God are now the fellowship of
the Spirit, consisting of Gentiles as well as Jews, from every nation, kindred, tribe, and tongue; he is
the universal Spirit.
 If Pentecost means anything, it is that the Spirit is here with the church to stay—permanently,
irrevocably. Because of Pentecost, believers can be confident that the Spirit will not abandon them.
But to say that is also to say that Pentecost means that Christ is here to stay and will not abandon
believers. In John 14, Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to the Father (verse 12) and promises
them that when he does he will ask the Father to send them the Spirit as Helper or Advocate (verses
16–17). And then he immediately adds, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you” (verse
18; see also verse 23). This statement hardly refers either to his temporary resurrection
appearances or to his return at the end of history, but to what will be true in the sending of the Spirit.

For the Spirit to come is for Jesus to come. So inseparable are the two in their activity that the
presence of the Spirit is the presence of Christ. Paul expresses this reality—in what is in effect a
one-sentence commentary on Pentecost—by saying that in his resurrection the glorified Christ, as
the last Adam, has become the “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Hence, he subsequently writes, “the
Lord [Christ] is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17).

To summarize our reflections on the gift of the Spirit, when Peter, in preaching the gospel on the day
of Pentecost, declared that those who repent “will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), he
was not promising, at least not in the first place, the gift of speaking in tongues they had just been
witnessing or, for that matter, any other particular gift the Spirit gives. Rather he has in view much
more than that: the Spirit himself as “the promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4; Luke 24:49). The gift is
nothing less than the Giver himself. In fact, the great gift, in which every believer shares, is God
himself—God our Father, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. We are bound to maintain nothing less
than this full, Trinitarian perspective on all matters that concern true spirituality.

The author, an OP minister, recently retired from teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary.
This article consists of slightly edited extracts from The Work of the Holy Spirit, available from the
Committee on Christian Education on OPC.ORG under “Publications.” Unless otherwise indicated,
Bible quotations come from the ESV. New Horizons, January 2012.

Where Godliness is Leaking

o Maurice Roberts

A religious movement is of value only in the measure in which it changes people's lives for the better. The
mere holding of meetings, let us say, or the printing of books or else the organising of congregations,
camps, conferences and committees is of little worth if it does not lead to godly living on the part of those
influenced by such enterprises. The holy life is the end in view of all true religious activity and it is its
ample reward and justification. Wherever and whenever a religious movement ceases to produce the
spiritual mind and the God-fearing life it has become a spent force. Whatever men may say in defence of
such a movement's being continued, it is questionable whether it has the sanction or the blessing of
heaven. History is strewn with examples of churches and organisations which began well and did good
but which then departed from their original good work. Our own day with its many Christian movements
and enterprises is no different from the past.

But it happens the other way round too. Sound churches and good organisations may suffer because,
though they are doing the work of God faithfully, men do not live up to their privileges but learn to take the
grace of God for granted. Many a good preacher feels like a man who is forever pouring water into a
bucket full of holes. He empties out gallons of truth into men's ears over the space of a year, but he
seems to see scarcely a spoonful of it taking effect in people's lives.

It is to be feared that there is a culpable leakage in our churches and fellowships. Many who attend
Reformed and evangelical churches make little or no attempt to live up to the level of their church creeds
and confessions. Many parents who hear sound preaching take marvellously little pains to see that their
children are brought to a knowledge of salvation. Many parents who sit under the sound of the gospel do
disappointingly little to order their homes and their family life in accordance with the principles of holy
scripture. Between the pulpit and the pew there is a leakage to be seen which saps the life of churches
and fellowships and which ought to be taken more seriously.

Godliness quickly lost⤒🔗

Godliness is soon lost. It is a delicate plant. A great preacher does not always have spiritual sons and
does not often have spiritual grandsons. The saintly parent cannot guarantee godliness in his children,
still less in his grandchildren. Holiness is vulnerable in this world. It is like snow that is quickly melted or
mist which disperses when the sun rises up. In one single generation of a family or of a church the power
of godliness which it previously had may be lost totally.

If we are to maintain and preserve the spirituality of our homes and churches we must act decisively and
purposefully. This we shall not be prepared to do unless we are first convinced of the fact that godliness is
the greatest blessing we can wish for our children and for all others over whom God gives us influence.
We ought therefore to begin with the conviction that neither health nor happiness, wealth nor education,
nor any other thing is comparable in importance to knowledge of God. If our children, our families and our
congregations are poor in all else yet rich in their love to God, they are rich indeed. But if they are rich in
all else and poor in love to Christ, they are miserably poor indeed. There can be no doubt that this is
God's view of the matter and that it ought therefore to be ours also.

Godliness in the family←⤒🔗

Not all Christians who have families have Christian families. There are families where Christians live but
when the distinctives of a truly Christian home are absent. This is so where parents go to church but
leave their children unnecessarily at home. It is so where meal-times are not sanctified by 'the word of
God and prayer' (1 Timothy 4:5). It is so where there is no proper order, no discipline and obedience, no
reasonable punctuality, no respect for parents, no prominence given to the things of God except in a
purely nominal way or where there is no sanctification of the Lord's Day above other days.

It should be the delight and the ambition of young Christians, when they become parents, to set up a
home which is Christian in every sense. This is not done merely by hanging scenes from John Bunyan on
all the walls. It begins with the cultivation of love, truth and respect between the members of the home.
The parents must pull together, speak well to one another and speak well of one another. The husband,
as head of the home, must 'rule' the house by his general bearing and demeanour as a man of abounding
affection and good sense whose leadership is of proven worth and whose judgment is known to be
formed by his extensive knowledge of the Word of God.

Such a man does not need normally to shout or to act heavy-handedly. He is loved and esteemed by all
around him. Though they may sometimes behave playfully or take good-humoured advantage of him in
slighter matters where no principles are at stake, as soon as he is seen to be in earnest every other
member of the family must come to attention and treat his words with the gravity they deserve.

Similarly the wife of a Christian home must 'guide' the household and its affairs with a prudent regard to
the well-being of each member and to the peace, unity and affection of the family as a whole. 'The hand
that rocks the cradle rules the world.' No one can do a mother's part in life but the mother herself. It is her
glory in the home that God has given her the first place of instinctive affection and intimacy with all her
children. The children of the home need her even more than they need their father. Her influence for good
is incomparable and she should exert all the energy she has to steer her children affectionately yet firmly
in the ways of the Lord.

Generally speaking, the fault of Christian parents in this day is not to expect enough of their children in
terms of the work and study which they do.

We live in an age which is obsessed with sport, leisure and recreation. The Christian parent needs to
correct this imbalance. The biblical ethic is in the words: 'six days shalt thou labour' (Exodus 20:9). That
is to say, work is the main business of life and play is very secondary. 'Bodily exercise profiteth little' (1
Timothy 4:8). This attitude to life is 'according to godliness' and a wise parent will see that work, not play,
is the main note in a child's developing outlook on life. Work is a blessing in many ways, not least
because it leaves less room and strength for mischief and temptation. Similarly, a wise parent will put a
stop to childish friendships outside the home which may not be for their child's spiritual or moral good.

Good parenting is vitally important for the good of the overall cause of God in the world. Not for nothing
does the Bible tell us the names of the mothers of so many Old Testament kings. We are most of us
either made or marred by our mother.

Good parenting can only be done by the parent. It cannot normally be done by anyone else, though in
families where special circumstances exist a godly relative or friend may play a minor role. It is a
thousand pities that most modern children come under the dominant influence of a 'third parent' in the
form of the television set. Those Christian parents who allow their children to watch television
programmes habitually ought in conscience to God and out of regard to their children's good to watch the
programmes with their children. It is the one sure way to monitor what they see and hear.

Christian parents who use the television set as a regular 'child minder' while they themselves attend to
other things would do well to ask themselves if they are really acting responsibly. Can they be sure that
while their back is turned the television is not forming in the child's mind habits of thought and feeling
which will one day end in practical atheism? A child, let us remind ourselves, may grow and develop
perfectly well under the impression of Bibles and books, without the supposed benefits of those
programmes which non-Christian families down the street may look on as essential for their own children.

Every minister of the gospel today knows that godliness is leaking badly in families where films and
popular music are allowed to control young lives. After all, children are only in church (hopefully) two or
three times a week. But the television and the popular records are available every day when parents let it
be so.

It was a good saying of an old divine: 'We have filled our children's bones with original sin and we must
spend all our strength rooting it out'. There is nothing to compare, if godliness is to be present in families,
with the good old practice of holding family worship morning and evening. The head of the family gathers
his wife and children about him while he reads a passage of the holy scriptures, sings with them and
prays for them. To this practice should be added that of catechising the young. It is still possible for
children to learn by heart the Answers to the Westminster Shorter Catechism or similar work. It may take
the combined determination of parent and child to accomplish this feat. But it can be done and should be
attempted. Even the less able child can be taught the catechism if enough parental care is taken. Even
before a child can really speak it can be taught simple truths about God by means of story and picture.

What about the child in church? It astonishes many a preacher that parents do not go through the sermon
afterwards with their children at home. At an early age children may be trained to listen for the text of a
sermon and for the main headings, illustrations, etc. It might mortify many parents if they realised that
their children hear scarcely anything a preacher says in his sermon, but are thinking their own thoughts!
This is pardonable in the very young and in any event it is better that children should be in the house of
God listening to preaching than not in church at all. But we ought as parents to gather up the crumbs for
the young by asking them questions at home and by helping them to recall and to understand at least the
rudiments of what the minister was preaching from God's Word.

How do we worship?←⤒🔗

It goes without saying that a great part of godliness has to do with the attitude we form towards the
worship of God. There are a number of areas where we might tighten up our modern approach to public
worship.

One such area is that of the gravity of our minds when we come to worship. It strikes us as very doubtful
whether the scriptures allow us to approach God's worship casually  at any time, but especially not on the
Lord's Day. God challenges as special right to order and govern his own worship and the frequently-
repeated pronouncements of scripture concerning our approach to him all lead to the conclusion that we
need to put ourselves into a serious state of mind before and during every time of worship. The ineffable
holiness and majesty of God demand that we come into his presence with awe and godly fear, with self-
examination and self-abasement. These things will affect the way we speak and behave when we are in
God's house. They will even be reflected in the way we dress and carry ourselves.

It is essential that there should be silence in the house of God during the worship. It may at times be
tolerated if very young children utter babyish sounds. But it is not proper for parents to retain their children
in the place of worship, during the sermon especially, if they are not able to keep them quiet. It
occasionally happens that a parent has not the wisdom to realise this and needs to have it courteously
pointed out to him or her by a responsible member of the congregation. But it ought not to happen. No
preacher can compete with a crying baby and no congregation should allow the problem to arise.

Nothing which smacks of 'entertainment' is appropriate in the worship of God. Infinite harm is done when
elements in a church service are aimed at amusing sinners rather than directing their minds to God. In
some churches it has been a longstanding tradition to have certain 'lighter' events in the worship
programme. But these, we believe, only mar and spoil God's worship and are not welcome to spiritual
people. Laughter is not the appropriate response of a worshipping congregation. It is, we suggest, a pity
when a congregation expects to laugh regularly in the course of a service of worship. We would do better
if we controlled this spirit of mirth and kept it for other occasions.

The Christian's self-watch←⤒🔗

Christian character is largely formed, where it is correctly formed, in the secret place. This is why it is all-
important for the believer to attend to his private devotions each day. No advice is easier to give or harder
to follow. There will, however, be no stopping the leakage of godliness unless we make conscience of our
daily secret times of worship. It is as we meditate on the Word of God and hold communion with him in
private prayer that the soul is transformed, we cannot say how, 'from glory to glory' (2 Corinthians 3:18).

It is not so much what we say or what we know that counts for Christian character and influence as what
we are. One man who is known for his sanctification and walks closely with Christ will be listened to when
he utters a quiet rebuke more than another who speaks volubly and yet lacks a convincing life-style.
There are talkers in plenty in every age. But those few who make a mark on their fellow-men for good are
always the ones who have an indefinable 'something' about them which carries the stamp of authority and
which arises from their nearness to God. Several of the spiritual duties which used to be regarded as
normal and commonplace for earnest Christians have regrettably fallen out of fashion in recent years. We
refer to the good old practice of learning passages of the Bible by heart, not forgetting the Psalms. If we
are to be followers of the Reformers and Puritans in any sense of the word we must labour long and hard
to master the Bible in our own language. It ought to be a matter of shame and regret to us not to know the
text of the Bible better. If we cannot quote it then we are not Christians in 'complete armour' but in a semi-
armed, and therefore semi-vulnerable, state.

This point is too often overlooked in all the modern debate about 'versions' of the Bible. It is not self-
evident that those who enjoy the advantages (as they see them) of the more fashionable versions are
able to quote the Bible more perfectly. The supreme need is that we should be full of the scriptures,
having it dwell plentifully in our hearts (Colossians 3:16) so that we may combat the devil and so adorn
the gospel with lives that are spiritual and sanctified.

A second point worth making about private devotions is that from time to time we might make it our policy
to have an extended period of prayer. We probably all have our 'measure' in prayer. For some it is an
hour daily. For many others it will be less, perhaps a lot less. By `measure' we mean that extent of time
spent in secret prayer which satisfies our soul and allows us opportunity to say to God more or less all we
have to say at the time. More is expected of ministers in this respect. But all Christians are to spend a
reasonable length of time in secret prayer.

What we here suggest is that it is very much for the advancement of godliness in ourselves and others
that we should occasionally prolong our normal time of prayer. At seasons of felt need, for instance, we
might well set aside a full hour or more for waiting on our knees before God. There are obvious and
undoubted advantages in this practice. It is a way of exercising  ourselves unto godliness (1 Timothy 4:7).
It 'stretches' the soul and enlarges its capacity. It deepens our seriousness. It calls forth an increased
measure of grace from the Almighty. Too few, we fear, are the times when modern Christians pray or fast
to the point of fatigue. But the Psalmist knew such an experience:

My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness.

Psalm 109:24

A third suggestion for promoting godliness which our forefathers made good use of was  the keeping of a
religious diary, or 'day-book’, to use the old phrase. There are numerous benefits to this practice. It
teaches us to notice the daily providences of God — an oft neglected yet rewarding duty (Psalm 107:42-
43). It teaches us to put spiritual thoughts, experiences and desires into appropriate words. It trains us to
check and compare our progress today with our progress in the past. It shows how God prompts us to
prayer, hears prayer and eventually answers prayer. It will become a well-spring of comfort in hours of
darkness. In short, the keeping of a daily record of our spiritual state will go a long way to enriching our
life and advancing the great task of glorifying and enjoying God.
God has blessed us in this generation with a recovery of many glorious doctrines long buried under the
rubbish of tradition and error. Our concern must be to 'improve' our privilege. Not to do that would be
ingratitude to God. We owe it to Christ to be the best of Bible-readers and the best hearers of sermons.
We owe it to our families and to posterity to see that the church children of this rising generation see the
best examples and receive the best instruction. Then let it be our heartfelt wish to stop up the leaks
between pulpit and pew, between the godliness of father and son, between what we are in our creeds and
what we are in our lives. It is a subject in which great issues are at stake.