Making the devil die of ennui

How does one defeat the Accuser of the Brethren?

Came across this Helen Keller quote:

It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui. 

Some might think that the efficacy of the perfect law of liberty against the devil is unscriptural, as stated in such unscriptural terms, but I think it is worthwhile to consider these following statements by "those who seemed to be pillars":

But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.

Paul seems to be saying here that the Accuser's plans are foiled by forgiveness.  He seems to imply the same thing in his letter to the Ephesians, when he says, “Be angry, and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, nor give place to the devil.”   Letting anger ferment into bitterness gives place to the devil. It is in fact one of the chief "wiles of the devil."

The apostle Kepha (Peter) says here:

Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.  Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

It would seem that being caught up in the cares of self-promotion make you vulnerable to the devourer.  James makes a similar point in his epistle, quoting the same scripture as Peter from the Tanakh, that resisting covetousness and competitiveness (through submission to God) is resistance to the devices of the Accuser.  Taken in context, I think that the First Epistle of John also may suggest that loving one's neighbor and opening one's "bowels of compassion" to him is resistance to the antichrist spirit.  

It could be that there is nothing like "fulfilling the law of Christ" that would stop the Accuser and make him to die of ennui.

The Scandal of Grace/Spirit

Having noticed the interchangeability of 'grace' and 'Spirit' in Paul the Apostle's writings, I am not surprised to note that some of the ministers championing their cause against "free grace" are also leading a crusade against the charismata of the Holy Spirit.

If you watch any production (Christian or otherwise) about the life of Paul or the early church (basically, the events in the Book of Acts), you may or may not notice-- depending on your familiarity with the Book of Acts-- that speaking in tongues is carefully avoided, even though this is the very evidence of the Spirit that led the Jewish Christians to accept that the "blessing of Abraham" had come on the Gentiles.

If you want to know what is "scandalous" in a society look at what they edit out.  The Holy Spirit is edited out of the Book of Acts, ludicrously, because the manifestation of such raises uncormfortable questions.  So first century Christianity is forced to look like "modern" Christianity, in a unbecoming but all too common form of revisionism.  Until the last two decades, the church in America has largely acted as though scandalized by the charismata of the Holy Spirit, and in the name of "that old time religion" depended on sketchy arguments about Paul predicting the demise of the first century charismata in 1 Corinthians 13 (the "love chapter"), a doctrine of "cessationism" which tries to explain why charismata were once essential for the "upbuilding" of Jesus' church but not now (we are presumably operating in the love and power of the Spirit ever much more than the church of that time).

John MacArthur, a pastor who has tried to purge Christianity of "free ride" salvation, has renewed his attacks on illicit and unapproved manifestations of the Spirit with his "Strange Fire" conference last year.  Dr. Michael Brown responded to it in a very generous and articulate plea to respect the Holy Spirit and to not mischaracterize the typical charismatic believer.  

Does anyone find it curious that Jesus' discussion of the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" comes in the context of Pharisees accusing Him of casting out devils by Beelzebub?  MacArthur refers the manifestation of the Spirit in charismatic churches, which extols the name of Jesus as Brown points out, as the blasphemy of the Spirit in the name of the Spirit, the setting up of an "idol spirit" in the church.  MacArthur seems to believe, with the Pharisees, that Satan casts out Satan and that Satan's kingdom is divided.  The "blasphemy" Jesus speaks of seems to be the attribution of the acts of the Spirit to the devil.  MacArthur must be overwhelmingly confident that he is not making the same mistake, and he instead redefines blasphemy to be wrongfully attributing the works of an "idol spirit" who heals the sick and exalts the name of Jesus to that of the Holy Spirit.  The humility of Gamaliel would be appropos in this situation, as Brown has argued elsewhere.

Christians who devote their energy to purging doctrinal error from Christianity seem to have little energy for anything else.  I appreciate Brown's generosity with MacArthur, but I wonder whether Paul the Apostle would be so generous.  His letter to the Galatians makes me wonder.  Would MacArthur fit Paul's profile of one who resents to liberty we have in Christ?  I imagine that MacArthur would respond that he doesn't fit the profile because he believes that circumcision is not among the works necessary for salvation.  

In an article in which Derek Prince (not to be confused with Joseph Prince) joins MacArthur in attacking the Christology of some charismatics, he writes:

I want to tell you that your salvation depends on your being holy. And holiness comes only from the Holy Spirit.  

Everything that is by grace is by the Spirit, and everything that is by the Spirit is by grace.  Given the thrust of Derek Prince's 'Beyond Grace' (he might as well say, "beyond the Holy Spirit"), my salvation, my being made whole by the Father of lights, is dependent on the holiness in me (which must be in me as a tabernacle of the Holy Spirit) surfacing in sufficient holy behavior, according to Prince, and this sounds dangerously like "another gospel."  In a parallel irony, Dan McConnell's popular attack on the charismatic church was titled A Different Gospel, as though a major perversion of faith was underway in the charismatic movement.  

MacArthur characterizes the charismatic movement as an extension of the psychedelic obsession of the 1960s:

"[B]arefoot, drug-induced young people told the church how the church should act. . .  Hymns and suits went out. For the first time in the history of the church, the conduct of the church was conformed to a sub-culture that was born of LSD and marijuana."

In his apparent ignorance of the restoration of the charismata in Azusa Street Revival, and the roots even earlier in healing movements of the 1800s, Macarthur wants to redefine the charismatic movement as a some culturally liberal extension of '60s social upheaval.  Did Macarthur watch Reefer Madness to prepare for his Strange Fire conference?  You don't need suits and the old-time hymns to worship God.  They that worship Him will worship Him in spirit and in truth, whether in suits or in bare feet.

Even Dr. Brown himself who is also a critic of what he sees as "hyper-grace" feel-good Christianity is sensitive on the issue of self-ful Christianity instead of selfless Christianity, as elaborated here:

Yes, this is the “gospel” of the 21st century, “Spirit-filled” church of America, where the cross is bypassed, denial of the flesh is scorned, purity is called legalism, and anything goes if it feels good.

But this I wonder:  The "false brothers" and "false apostles" that Paul spoke so vehemently against, did they not believe they were steering the believers back to purity?  Did Satan let them know of his nefarious plans, or were they unwitting (through hard-heartedness) dupes?

Brown is right to question spirituality that has no time for an outward display of righteousness, but we need to also be grounded in that any so-called holiness that does not stem from a living experience of grace is righteousness by the law, and is not a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees.  It is a righteousness that Paul specifically had to give up in order to be "found in Him."  Like Paul, I don't want any other righteousness, and I'm not interested in a salvation that depends on my goodness instead of His.  If that is a path that requires self-sacrifice to be fully realized, then that too must be by grace, by His goodness.  If it depends on my being holy, apart from the holiness of his sheer presence in me as his tabernacle, then I have whereof to boast.  Grace is in vain in that case.  "Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

If there is a "form of godliness that denies the power thereof", then there is a form of godliness that denies the grace-empoweredness thereof.  The charismatic movement was partly an answer to a powerless approach to godliness, and the church is still in need of an answer to a grace-starved approach to godliness.  I don't think that "hyper-grace" is making people indifferent to sin; I think that people are mistaking a denial of the existence of sin for hyper-grace.  Grace is lavished upon us in the Anointed Jesus.  There is a pleroma of grace, an abundance of grace.  It is there to free us from "so many weights and sins that beset" us, not for us to root like pigs in our moral turpitude.  But the answer to a lack of repentance is not to "tone down the grace."  

As for a believer seeking to live "beyond grace," I would ask, "Having begun in grace, are you now made perfect through 'your being holy'?"  O foolish Galatian, who has bewitched you?

χάρις and χαρισματα [charis and charismata]

What god is there like You, our God, forgiving rebellion and overlooking treachery among the remnant of His heirs?  He doesn't hold onto His anger indefinitely, because He delights in khesed.
  — Micah 7:18

Much of the meaning of the New Testament is understood through the lens of Paul the Apostle, and grace is the most central idea in his understanding of the "good news" of the new covenant.  The word "grace" is in fact a cognate word of the koine Greek word "χάρις" [kharis, charis] that is used in much of the New Testament:

“For by χάρις are you saved through faith.” “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under law, but under χαρις.” “For the law was bestowed through Moses, but χαρις and truth were realized through Jesus the Anointed.”

Which leads us to a closely related word that recurs in Paul's letters:

χάρισμα

The famous "love" monologue ("Love suffers long ...") read at weddings is an integral part (not a digression) of a longer passage in Paul's letter to the Corinthians about "spiritual gifts," a phrase that variously refers to supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit or to vocations inspired by the spirit (e.g. as an apostle or prophet).  It can't be a coincidence that this man that characterized the "good news" of the kingdom of God in terms of χαρις characterized each manifestation of the Paraclete as a χάρισμα [charisma].  The χαρίσματα [charismata, plural] are to be desired earnestly and sought after.

Charisma basically means 'a gift'.  Outside the NT it is not at all a common word. In classical Greek it is rare.  It is not common in the papyri, but there is one suggestive occurrence where a man classifies his property as that which he acquired apo agorasias, 'by purchase', and that which he acquired apo charismatos, 'by gift'.  In the NT charisma is a characteristically Pauline word.
  — William Barclay, New Testament Words  

If χαρίσμα was uncommon in ancient Greek, the rare usage of χάρις among Hellenized Jewry in Paul's day is also worth noting.

Since 'grace' is so distinctively Pauline . . . it is important to grasp that Paul drew this term also . . . from his scriptural Old Testament or Tanakh (OT) heritage.  This point needs to be reaffirmed, since it has been maintained that 'the word charis [χαρις] is almost unknown in the Jewish literature'.  On the contrary, however, Paul would no doubt have been well aware of the two Hebrew words, chen ('grace, favour') and chesed ('gracious favour, lovingkindness, covenant love').  Both denoted the generous act of a superior to an inferior.  But the former [chen] was more one-sided, . . . The latter [chesed] was a more relational term.
 — James Dunn in Ancient Perspectives on Paul

That is, where Paul is writing in Greek he is still thinking in terms of the Tanakh.  "Surely goodness and khesed will follow me all the days of my life." (Psalm 23)

Much nearer Paul’s use of charis [χαρις] is ratson (רָצוֹן), “acceptance,” in such passages as Isaiah 60:10, “In my favor have I had mercy on thee”; Psalms 44:3, “not … by their own sword … but … because thou wast favorable unto them.” Perhaps still closer parallels can be detected in the use of chesed (חֶסֶד), “kindness,” “mercy,” as in Exodus 20:6, etc. But, of course, a limitation of the sources for the doctrine to passages containing only certain words would be altogether unjust.      

  — Burton Scott Easton, section 6 of "The Meaning of 'Grace' in the Bible"

For Paul the Apostle everything that is by the Spirit is by grace, and everything that is by grace is by the Spirit.  It is no wonder that he called the manifestations of the Spirit of God "gracings".

“In Paul ... χαρις is never merely an attitude or disposition of God (God’s character as gracious); consistently it denotes something much more dynamic—the wholly generous act of God. Like ‘Spirit,’ with which it overlaps in meaning (cf., e.g., [Rom] 6:14 and Gal 5:18), [χαρις] denotes effective divine power in the experience of men.”
  — James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 17 [emphasis mine]

To think about another word that is used by Paul to describe the connection between Jesus the Anointed and his anointed church:

“See, from his [Jesus'] pleroma we have all received χαρις on top of χαρις.”

Charisma - New Testament Words

test 2

When he was 30 years old, Ezekiel began to experience astonishing visions from Almighty God. Perhaps in a personal diary, he recorded the exact date on which the first vision occurred: "Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the River Chebar, that the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God" (Ezekiel:1:1Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God., emphasis added throughout).

test

reference link another