On the Baptism of the Holy
Spirit
By Craig Simonian
Since the establishment of modern Pentecostalism in 1901,
Pentecostal and traditional evangelical theologians[1]
have been at odds over the meaning of the baptism in the Spirit.[2] Although each position offers a viable
interpretation, it will be proven that neither has been entirely true to
scripture. The conclusions offered in this paper reflect, to a great degree,
the positions maintained by those who “stand in the gap” between the
Pentecostals and Traditional Evangelicals... men such as C. Peter Wagner, Wayne
Grudem, Jack Deere and John Wimber, whose Vineyard Christian Fellowship grew
from a few churches just a few decades ago, to nearly eight hundred today. This paper attempts identify the reasons why
the Vineyard may have adopted the theological position it has with regard to
the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is
not mean to reflect “official” Vineyard thinking as no Vineyard sources were
consulted other than their own doctrinal statement.
Given that the foundations of Pentecostal theology rest
in the Gospel of Luke and in the Book of Acts, it is necessary that the issue
of interpretation be addressed. As a
principle of interpretation, many traditional theologians have strongly asserted
that doctrine must be based primarily on didactic passages rather than
descriptive or narrative passages.
Since Luke‑Acts reflect the narrative style, and because Paul's
letters are generally didactic, it follows that doctrine should be based on
Paul, not Luke. Therefore, we should
interpret Luke in light of Paul. Such
scholars as Dunn, Green, Erickson, and Stott have adopted this methodology.
Erickson, for example, states that with respect to doctrines, those theologians
who emphasize the supreme authority of the Bible must place major emphasis upon
the didactic material.[3]
Similarly, John Stott writes,
This revelation of the
purpose of God in Scripture should be sought in its didactic, rather than its
historical parts. More precisely, we
should look for it in the teachings of Jesus, and in the sermons and writings
of the apostles, and not in the purely narrative portions of Acts.[4]
This notion, which considers Luke to be only a historian rather than both historian and theologian, is utterly without merit, as we will see.
First, this distinction between didactic and descriptive
narratives fails to recognize the diversity of literary forms biblical writers
have been inspired to use. Also, God
often reveals His character and purpose through His actions-- such as the way
in which He deals with man. A great amount of biblical revelation has come
through descriptive narratives.[5] Webster’s defines didactic as that which is
"used for instruction, intended for teaching". Many if not all of the descriptive passages
in scripture have the same purpose.[6] Paul himself states that "all scripture
is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for training in righteousness."[7] He says also in Romans 15:4, "for
whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction." He was, of course, referring to the Old
Testament which is mostly narrative.
Paul would not have made a distinction between 'didactic' Leviticus and
'descriptive' Exodus. James Barr, classifies this distinction as a,
"illegitimate identity transfer".[8]
Surely Luke did not set out to compose a mere academic
recording of events but he carefully chose from a vast supply of pericopes in
order to fulfill his theological intent. Charles Hummel states that "Luke,
like other historians, has his own perspective on events and a particular
purpose in reporting them which guides his selection of facts, the way he
relates to them, and the meaning they communicate... The narratives in Acts are
no more 'purely descriptive' than are the testimonies of Paul. Both are designed to teach."[9] No longer, should we interpret Luke's
theology of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in light of Paul. With respect to Luke's independence as a
theologian, Marshall writes "Luke was entitled to his own views, and the
fact that they differ in some respects from those of Paul should not be held
against him at this point. On the
contrary, he is a theologian in his own right and must be treated as
such."[10]
Now that Luke has
been restored to his proper place as a theologian, the question now is not
whether or not his descriptive passages have doctrinal value but how to
interpret what is being taught. As a theologian independent of Paul we must
realize that Luke's meaning of baptism in the Spirit may differ from Paul. What is Luke's doctrine of the Baptism of
the Holy Spirit? First we must
understand Luke's theological intent with respect to the Holy Spirit. While Luke agrees that the gift of the Holy
Spirit is essential in conversion, he does not attempt to describe the inner
spiritual development of the disciples.[11] The many examples of believers in the Book
of Acts cause us to "search for a normative model, a standard pattern of
spiritual growth. But it is fruitless
because Luke does not intend to provide one."[12] Luke's intent is not to describe the inner
life of Christians, but the expansion of the church as it fulfills its
mission. We would have to go to the
teachings of Paul to investigate the Spirit's work in the inner life of an
individual Christian.
The phrase, “Baptize in the Holy Spirit”, is mentioned
seven times in the New Testament-- four times by John the Baptist in each of
the four gospels referring to the experience of the disciples on Pentecost; two
times as quotations in Acts; and once by Paul to describe initiation into the
body of Christ.[13] In lieu of the narrow contexts here, we must
consider whether the phrase has more than one meaning. Both Luke and Paul speak of the baptism
within the context of their purpose.
Luke's perspective is the "unfolding of redemptive history and the
mission of the church" whereas Paul's is the "experience of
individual believers when they become members of the church".[14] Yet in spite of their different purposes,
men such as Stott and Dunn continue to interpret the many passages in Acts
relevant to Pentecostal theology against the backdrop of Paul's purpose, not
Luke's. Stott makes no effort to see
Luke as having a distinctive purpose.
In Baptism and Fullness, he basically starts with Paul's notion
that the baptism refers to incorporation into the body of Christ (I Corinthians
12:13) and attempts to fit all of Luke's narrative into this mold.
Luke's understanding of the baptism refers primarily to
an empowerment for prophetic witness. He neither refers to a first or second
stage of salvation in the life of an individual. Hummel makes this clear saying that the baptism of the Spirit
should not be understood as a milestone in the disciples' individual spiritual
pilgrimage. This is neither the intent nor the context of Luke's teaching. From Luke's theological perspective it is a
sign, not if the disciple's inner experience, but of the coming of the New Age
in God's plan of redemptive history.[15]
Only against this backdrop can Luke-Acts be correctly interpreted and
Pentecostal theology evaluated.
Pentecostals build their theology of Spirit Baptism from
their understanding of water baptism, Pentecost and related passages, and five
instances in Acts where it would appear that believers were baptized with the
Spirit subsequent to regeneration. Each
of these will be studied in light of both Paul and Luke's purpose. Because water baptism was considered in
Judaism and by the early church fathers to be a rite of initiation into the
people of God, the initial occurrence of the Spirit's indwelling and empowering
was associated with baptism in the Holy Spirit.[16] The fact that the Spirit descended upon
Jesus moments after His baptism in the Jordan River by John strengthens the
association between water and Spirit baptism.
The "indwelling and endowment with the Holy Spirit, being available
through Christ to all who believe, inevitably was linked with and described in
terms of that crucial public step by which individuals first... were accepted
as members of the Spirit-filled... Church of Christ."[17] Traditional evangelical theologians also
associate water baptism with Spirit baptism in so far as it demonstrates that
Spirit baptism, like water baptism is an initiatory rite-- not something that
would come subsequent to conversion.[18]
Many Pentecostals do not accept the association between water and Spirit
baptism. They view the one as being
entirely independent of the other.[19] Therefore, the notion of Spirit baptism as a
requisite to initiation or incorporation into the body does not exist. However, as will be proven later, Paul
clearly states that believers are baptized into the body of Christ-- hence, you
can not be a Christian unless you are baptized into the body of Christ.[20]
Pentecostals have
been at odds with traditional theologians over the nature of Pentecost. In
anticipation of this event, John the Baptist spoke to the multitudes in Luke
3:16 saying, “as for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is
mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thongs of His sandals; He will
baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
Whereas John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness
of sins, Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit. Yet, this Man of the Spirit
would become the Giver of the Spirit only after He died, rose, and ascended
(John 16:7). Each of the four gospels
anticipated the occasion where Jesus will pour out His Spirit on all who
believe. This awaited day was
Pentecost. In summarizing the significance of Pentecost, Hummel writes, “For Jesus this day has a twofold
significance. He had been anointed and
filled with the Spirit for His own public ministry. Now, exalted at the right hand of God, He pours out the Holy
Spirit on His disciples to empower their mission. On Pentecost Jesus baptizes
them with the Spirit as John the Baptist foretold. The Bearer of the Spirit
becomes the Giver of the Spirit.”[21]
In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is depicted as the unique Bearer of the Spirit. Luke makes it a point to end his gospel with
the ascension of Jesus-- this marks the end of Jesus' earthly ministry. In the Book of Acts, on the other hand, Luke
begins with the ascension. This time,
however, the ascension is not viewed as the culmination of Jesus' ministry on
earth but the beginning of the Spirit age (Acts 2:33). Here, the ascension is the introduction to
Pentecost which ushers in the New Age.[22] Whereas in the Old Covenant the Spirit was
given to a select few, the New Covenant will extend a universal endowment (Acts
2:39).
The gift of the Spirit given to the disciples on
Pentecost, by Jesus, parallels the transfer of the Spirit from Moses to the
seventy elders.[23] This parallel is important for it
demonstrates the background from which Luke writes. Luke was very much influenced by the ministry of the Holy Spirit
in the Old Testament with respect to the transfer motif, just mentioned, and
the vocational motif.[24] The Spirit often dealt with certain men in
order to enable them to perform some special service.[25] For example, He enabled some for governing
nations (Nu. 27:15-23), for military leadership (Judges 3:10; 6:34-6), for
artistic workmanship (Ex. 31:4‑ 5), and for prophetic ministry and
writing of scripture (Ezekiel 11:5).[26] When speaking of the baptism in the Holy
Spirit, Luke is speaking in similar terms-- power to serve. There is much debate concerning Pentecost
that demand attention here.
Pentecostals rightly see the disciples as regenerate men. In Luke 10:20, Jesus exhorts His disciples
not to rejoice in the authority He has given them over Satan, but to rejoice
that their names "are recorded in heaven".[27] Therefore, the experience of Pentecost can
be considered a 'second experience'. They also see the church as already
existing before Pentecost. To support
this they quote Matthew 18 which deals with 'church' discipline.[28] In order to address this issue it is
necessary to turn to John 20:21-22.
Here in John 20, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples
who were in fear behind locked doors because of the Jews:
Jesus came and stood in
their midst, and said to them, 'Peace be with you'...And again Jesus said,
'Peace be with you! As the Father has
sent me, I am sending you.' And with that
He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones considers this a certain proof that
indeed, "the church was constituted as a body and as an organism there and
then. Our blessed Lord, having finished
His work and having presented Himself and His blood in heaven, is now the head
of the church... He breathes this Spirit of life into the body..."[29]
In interpreting this verse, it is important to consider John's purpose here--
for our interpretation must never lie away from the framework within which the
author works. It is important to note
that John is not trying to neatly dovetail his narrative here with Luke as
though they were moving in an identical direction. Hummel completes this
thought saying,
This account in chapter 20
should not be viewed as filling a gap in Luke's sequence and interpreted within
his framework. In his Gospel, John
teaches the unity of the final decisive events in Jesus' ministry: death,
resurrection, ascension and gift of the Spirit. He records this fourth event of the cluster in the context of the
commission given to the disciples.[30]
John 20 is usually interpreted in one of two ways
although both fail to understand the passage in light of John's purpose. Some believe that the impartation of the
Spirit in verse 22 began the New Age of the Spirit-- where the disciples were regenerated
and the church was rooted. Howard Ervin
supports this notion stating, "from the Paschal insufflation of the
Spirit, the apostolic community was the church, in the full sense of the word,
before the Holy Spirit came upon them conferring power to witness
(Pentecost)."[31] Like Luke, John's purpose is not the inner
life of the disciples.
Others view Jesus' action as a promise of a future
event. J.I. Packer holds to this
position citing the fact that Jesus was not yet glorified and therefore could
not have given the Holy Spirit to the disciples (in the New Covenant sense).[32] Therefore, John 20 is prophesy foretelling
of a future event-- namely, Pentecost.[33] This position is weak since all three verbs
within the text are in the present tense.
Indeed, one can not make the last verb to mean 'you will receive the
Holy Spirit'.[34] It would seem consistent with John's purpose
that the impartation, although not a full impartation, was indeed real. "Before His departure, He graciously
gives them, not only their mission, but also the experience of the Spirit they
need until His full coming at Pentecost.[35] It light of this, one would be hard-pressed
to prove the existence of a Christian church prior to Pentecost from John
20. Although the disciples were regenerated,
they were so in the Old Testament sense-- they did not have the permanent
infilling of the Spirit that was provided for the New Testament believers. The followers of Christ prior to Pentecost
show none of the signs of Christian community so clearly depicted in Acts--
such as apostolic teaching (2:42) and baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ (2:41). Also, the entire company
of the 120 early believers is blessed, and the Spirit's presence is not restricted
to select individuals. Rather, the
Spirit's presence, first given at Pentecost, is the abiding possession of the
community."[36]
In lieu of this evidence, Pentecostals have mistakenly
viewed John 20 as the initial infilling of the Spirit in the lives of the
disciples. It is, therefore, wrong for
them to consider Pentecost as a necessary second experience in the lives of the
believers. After all, just a few
chapters after the Pentecost narrative, in Acts 4:31, do we see Peter and John,
along with a number of others, again “filled with the Holy Spirit” after the
place where they were meeting was shaken as a result of the Spirit’s powerful
presence.[37] Traditional theologians have also erred
by perceiving Jesus' impartation of the Spirit as a future event relating to
salvation rather than service. Both
groups have not interpreted the Pentecost narrative in lieu of Luke's
theological intent. Luke has a
theological interpretation of this Pentecost event-- that is, the disciples
were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4).
Peter quotes Joel in Acts 2:17,
“And it shall be in the last days,' God says, 'that I will pour fourth
My Spirit upon all mankind; and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young
men shall see visions...”
It is significant that Peter quotes Joel rather than
Ezekiel 36:26-27 which focuses on the "inward cleansing activity of the
Spirit for a new life and righteous living" which also takes place in the
New Age. Yet Peter is not presenting
this perspective. The "immediate
result of the Spirits' being poured out is not moral living but prophetic
activity for powerful witness, as Jesus had promised."[38] Pentecostals can not, therefore, use
Pentecost as a model of second inner experience following conversion since
Luke's intention is primarily service, not a second stage of one's inner
spiritual development. The fact that
Pentecost is such a unique experience "rules it out as a model for all
later Christians."[39] The disciple's experience does, however,
"present a model for the church mission in the world. Filling with the Holy Spirit for effective
witness and service is normative for all Christians."[40]
It is important to note that although Jesus promises the
disciples that they will "be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days
from now (Acts 1:5)", Luke "attributes the unusual behavior of the
disciples on the day of Pentecost to their being "filled with the
Spirit".[41] Luke uses this phrase nine times in
Luke-Acts (compared to Paul's one) and is his most common description of the
activity of the Holy Spirit.[42] The filling of the Spirit at Pentecost is
not a isolated event, for people such as John (Luke 1:15), Elizabeth (Luke
1:41), Zacharias (Luke 1:67), Peter (Acts 4:8), and Paul (Acts 9:17; 13:52)
"filled" with the Spirit on specific occasions. Thus it is not a once-for-all event, but is
repetitive.[43] According to the verses cited above, it
would seem that Luke's phrase "filled with the Spirit" is always used
to describe prophetic inspiration[44],
power to witness, or glossolalia.[45]
This would seem to take the unique character away from
the Pentecost experience-- it does not.
The language used to describe Pentecost is extensive-- for it is at once
“a clothing, a baptizing, and empowering, a filling, and an outpouring of the
Holy Spirit. No single term adequately
denotes the meaning of the gift of the Spirit, but each makes its own
contribution to the total meaning of the Pentecost event.[46]
Therefore it takes on all that which is implied in the Lukan phrase,
"filled with the Spirit", while also maintaining the distinctiveness
of the Pentecost event-- which is the inauguration of the New Age and the
establishment of the New Testament church.
Luke explains the pouring forth at Pentecost through the
words of Joel, Jesus, and Peter-- all of whom support that Pentecost involves
the prophetic activity of the Spirit.[47] Luke also makes it clear that at Pentecost,
the baptism in the Spirit empowered the disciples for witness, as does the
filling. Yet the filling seems to fall on an "individual or a group in
order to meet a specific need, whether for bold preaching or prophesy or
healing.[48] Acts 1:8 confirms this, "but you shall
receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my
witnesses..."[49]
The purpose of Spirit baptism is proclamation.
Pentecostal theology is derived chiefly from four
passages in Acts which are supposed to speak of believers who receive the gift
of the Spirit subsequent from regeneration.[50] It is crucial that each passage be dealt
with individually in accordance with the theological intent of the author. The first passage deals with the conversion
of Saul in Acts 9:1-18. While riding to
Damascus to persecute the church, … A light from heaven flashed around him; and
he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you
persecuting me?' And he said, 'Who art
thou Lord?' And He said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and
enter the city, and it shall be told to you what to do (3b-6). When Saul got up off the ground, he found
that he could not see. Later, in verses
17-18, after Ananias laid his hands upon Saul, Saul regained his sight and was
baptized. Pentecostals understand this passage to say that Saul, who was saved
on the Damascus road, was baptized in the Spirit three days later. Yet there is no reason to believe that Saul
was converted until after his encounter with Ananias.[51]
The context for Saul's being filled with the Spirit,
however, is not so much Paul's conversion but commission. Luke is "not concerned to teach a
specific sequence of repentance, baptism, reception of the Spirit, and the need
for a particular manifestation as evidence of his (Paul's) filling."[52] The point is that the Lord called Paul and
empowered him to fulfil his commission to the Gentiles. Thus, "filled with the Spirit"
(9:17) is the necessary complement to the charge, "bear My name before the
Gentiles".[53] Whereas Pentecostals use this passage to
show the existence of a second work of grace, the traditional theologians go
out of their way to prove that Saul's baptism was not subsequent to
baptism. Both are wrong in that they
fail to interpret the passage in light of the author’s intent.[54]
Another passage used to support the reception of the gift
of the Spirit after regeneration is Acts 19:1-7. Here, Paul approaches the 'Ephesian dozen' and asked whether they
received the Spirit when they believed.
After they said no, Paul gave them a more complete understanding
regarding Jesus. The Spirit then comes
upon them and they spoke with tongues and were prophesying. Traditionally, theologians have considered
the Ephesian disciples (of John) to be non-Christian.[55] James Dunn states that the "twelve
Ephesians are therefore further examples of men who were not short of
Christianity, but were not yet Christians because they lacked the vital
factor-- the Holy Spirit."[56]
Again, Luke's purpose is not inner spiritual development
but the mission of the church. Paul's statement, "did you receive the Holy
Spirit when you believed?" should not interpreted in an initiatory or
soteriological context.[57] It would seem that the context out of which
Paul's statement came is found in what eventually took place-- tongues and
prophesy. Luke's lesson here, as it is
throughout Acts, "lies in the vocational or prophetic function of the Holy
Spirit's filling; that is, when the Holy Spirit comes upon the believer, he
does so in order to equip for "declaring the wonders of God" (Acts
2:11).[58] Paul is not asking the Ephesians whether the
Spirit has "baptized them into the body of Christ" (I Corinthians 12)
or regenerated them. Rather he is
asking them whether they have received the prophetic gift of the Spirit. Luke found no tension between "the fact
of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer and an
additional experience of receiving the prophetic or charismatic gift of the
Spirit."[59]
The third passage, causing disputes between Pentecostals
and traditional theologians concerns the Samaritan converts in Acts 8:
14-19. Many Samaritans respond to the preaching
of Philip-- they believed and were baptized (water). When news of this reached the apostles in Jerusalem, they sent
two representatives, Peter and John to pray for the Samaritans who were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (8:16).
When Peter and John lay their hands on these new converts, they received
the Holy Spirit (vs 17). Like the
previous passages, Pentecostals use this passage to defend their position of a
second 'work of grace' (i.e. the baptism in the Holy Spirit).[60] Traditional theologians defend their
position that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is at regeneration by rejecting
the notion that the Samaritans were saved people. Dunn states that the Samaritans never really believed at all-- their
attention was fixed only on Philip, not Jesus.[61] In light of the healings, exorcisms, and joy
(vs. 7-8) which were associated with the Samaritan's belief, Dunn's assertion
can hardly be correct.
Michael Green offers a better solution. He claims that the Lord held back His Spirit
in order that the century-old split between the Jews and Samaritans would not
take place in the Church. "If the
Samaritans had been baptized, the ancient schism may have continued which would
have created two churches out of fellowship with each other."[62] Through the laying on of hands by Peter and
John, the Jerusalem church could express their solidarity with the converts.[63]
Having established the fact that the Samaritans were
indeed Christians, "receive the Spirit" in verse 15 can not be
referring to regeneration-- since one can not be a Christian without the Spirit
(Romans 8:9). When the reception of the
Spirit in Acts is described in terms of initiation and conversion, the mistake
of reading Paul into Luke has been made.
For the Samaritans, this "later receiving of the Spirit was a
charismatic manifestation, not the completion of their initiation-conversion
into the church."[64] As it has been emphasized, for Luke, the
Gift of the Spirit has a vocational purpose-- equipping the disciples for
service. "Because the gift of the Spirit is charismatic or vocational and
is bestowed upon believers, then the temporal separation between belief and the
reception of the Spirit, as is evident in the Samaritan narrative, poses no
theological inconsistencies or contradiction."[65]
The last passage, Acts 10:44-46, records the occasion
where the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the message (10:44)
Peter had presented to the house of Cornelius. Those listening began
"speaking in tongues and exalting God" (vs.46). Peter then orders them to be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ (vs.48). James
Dunn notes that this verse shows that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is God's
act of acceptance, forgiveness, cleansing and salvation-- not something
separate from salvation.[66] Pentecostals consider Cornelius either to
have been saved prior to his receiving the Spirit or after he was
regenerate. Whereas the one interprets
outside the theological framework set by the author, the other reads too much
into the text.
Peter clearly identifies the gift of the Spirit to
Cornelius with Pentecost (11:15; 15:8). Therefore, "the gift of the Spirit
to the household of Cornelius has the same vocational or charismatic purpose as
the gift of the Spirit to the disciples on the day of Pentecost."[67] This incident demonstrated to Peter and
those circumcised believers accompanying him, that the "gift of the Holy
Spirit had poured out upon the Gentiles also (vs 45)." Indeed, God makes no distinction between
Jews and Gentiles-- all can receive the prophetic gift of the Spirit (Acts
2:17).
In I Corinthians 12:13 Paul writes, “For by one Spirit we
were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or
free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” When read against the
backdrop of verse four, “Now there are
varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit”, it is clear that Paul is teaching
of the unity they have in Christ which undergirds their diversity. Whatever differences believers might have,
there is one body and all Christians must be baptized into it (by the Spirit).[68] This baptism is "the forming of that
organic relation between Christ and the believer."[69] Here, not in Luke, is where we find the
inner life of an individual believer being discussed. It must be emphasized that Paul's notion of baptism is not
synonymous with Luke's.[70]
Pentecostals have, as we have seen, rightly understood
much of Luke's purpose and meaning of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. In three passages (LK 24:47-49; Acts 1:4-5;
1:8) "Jesus describes the nature and purpose of His promised baptism with
the Spirit. As the Holy Spirit comes
upon the disciples, they will be clothed with power from on high to become
witnesses to the ends of the earth.
Well before Pentecost, the baptism with the Holy Spirit is given
theological interpretation-- empowering for mission."[71] Traditional theologians must also come to
such an understanding. In light of our previous discussion, however, it is
clear that they have incorrectly viewed this event as a second experience,
separate from conversion. Their attempt
at reading ICor.12:13 as supportive of a second experience of the Spirit is
invalid.[72]
Traditional theologians correctly interpret I Corinthians
12:13 to refer to the Spirit's action of incorporating a believer into the body
of Christ. They err, however, in their
massive attempt to squeeze Luke into this mold. They must remember that the basic meaning of 'baptidzo' and
'bapto' is to immerse or wash and does not always convey the idea of
initiation. "To insist that
'baptism' always implies initiation is to fail to recognize the different
meanings a word can convey."[73] Another error of traditional theologians
comes as a result of the wedge they drive between didactic and narrative
portions of scripture. To say the
writings of Paul are didactic and therefore normative for doctrine, thereby
dismissing Luke merely as a historian has no scriptural merit.
Clearly, both Pentecostal and Evangelical theologians have
fallen short in their attempts at interpreting scripture. Rather than continue this debate, these
groups should recognize that the New Testament does not present the baptism in
the Spirit which must refer either to the beginning of the Christian life or to
subsequent experiences. Paul teaches a
Spirit-baptism into the body of Christ which also involves regeneration,
sealing and indwelling by the Spirit.
This is part and parcel of becoming a Christian because "if anyone
does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Romans
8:9). Luke teaches a baptism in the
Spirit which is a pouring out and a filling of the Spirit to endue with power
for witness and service. From his
perspective it is neither the first nor the second stage of salvation in the
life of the individual. Rather it is a
repeated filling with the Spirit which manifests His presence as a sign of the
New Age.[74]
For years now Pentecostals and Evangelicals have been at
odds over this whole issue of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Clearly we must stop this bickering within
the army of the living God. This 'civil
war' has allowed the enemy to gain much ground. Evangelicals scoff at the so-called excesses of the Pentecostals,
claiming that their position is based purely on experience. Our lack of 'experience' as Evangelicals
should cause us to laugh only at ourselves, for our dead orthodoxy has done
nothing to reach the millions of unreached peoples throughout the world. Indeed, traditional theologians can also be
held responsible for developing their theology, not from experience, but their
lack of experience. That is, since they
have not seen God heal, many reject the notion that God no longer heals as He
had in the New Testament. It is their
fervor to know God that has made the Pentecostalists the fastest growing
missions force in the world.
Thanks be to God for the Pentecostals and the charismatic
movement, which has recaptured for the church the "dynamic, charismatic
activity of the Spirit. They have
reminded the Evangelical world of the believer’s great need to be
supernaturally empowered by the “Spirit of Power” so that the church can
operate in the greatest possible dimension of life in the Spirit.[75] Unfortunately, their notion of Spirit
baptism as subsequent to salvation has caused many Pentecostals to consider
those brothers and sisters who have not been 'baptized' as inferior and
lacking. It is time we, as the body of
Christ, remove our doctrinal labels which keep us in the trenches fighting one
another. The Pentecostal in one trench,
dogmatic regarding the 'second work of grace', and the traditional evangelicals
in another, fighting to interpret Luke as though he were Paul. Surely, it is by one Spirit that we were all
baptized into one body, in spite of our many differences, through the baptism
of the Holy Spirit. In recent years,
the term “Empowered Evangelicals”[76]
came into circulation to describe those who find themselves in the gap between
the Pentecostal and non-cessationist Evangelicals. In my opinion, more and more pastors, lay leaders, and
congregants in the Church today, are feeling lost in this “excluded middle”
between these polar positions. The
position held by the Vineyard has become a home
for many of these people, which accounts for much of their growth over the
years. My prayer is that the Lord will
continue to send to the church men, such as John Wimber, who will contribute,
as he has, toward the unity of God’s people.
[1]. I will use the designation, Traditional Evangelical Theologian or Traditional Theologian simply to distinguish them from Pentecostal Theologians. Both would be considered Evangelical by today’s definition.
[2]. The modern Pentecostal movement is a later development of John Wesley's teachings on entire sanctification as a "second work of grace". However, as the nineteenth century appeared, the emphasis of this 'second work', or baptism with the Spirit, took on additional meaning. Men such as R.A. Torrey and Andrew Murray taught that the baptism in the Spirit, distinct from regeneration, equips the Christian for service. A.B. Simpson spoke of the baptism in broader terms including purifying, refining, quickening, and energizing. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to Petecostals today, is the full reception of the Spirit subsequent to regeneration, which empowers the believer for witness and the exercise of spiritual gifts.
[3]. Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd ed., 1998.) p.208.
[4]. John R.W. Stott. Baptism and Fullness. (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP, 1971), p.8.
[5]. Charles E. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace: Charismatic Renewal n the Nineties (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1993), p.107.
[6]. Ibid., p.107.
[7]. II Timothy 3:16
[8]. Roger Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. (Peabody, Mass: Henrickson Publishers, 1984.) p.9. See Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language.
[9]. Hummel, p.107. For additional support, see I.H. Marshall Luke: Historian and Theologian. (Grand Rapids:MI, Zondervan, 1970).
[10]. Stronstad, p.11.
[11]. Hummel, p.108.
[12]. Ibid., p.109.
[13]. Since this phrase is used three times by Luke and only once by Paul it is even more absurd to interpret Luke in light of Paul with regard to the Spirit baptism.
[14]. Hummel, p.182.
[15]. Ibid., p.183.
[16]. E.W. Lyon. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. by Walter A. Elwell. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.) p.121. Note: men such as Irenaeus (ca. AD 130-202), Tertullian (AD 150), Didymus of Alexandria (AD 309), and Basil (AD 330) all associated water baptism with Spirit baptism. [see Stanely M Burgess. The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity. (Peabody, Mass: Henrickson Publishers, 1984.) pp. 64, 110, 115, 141.]
[17]. Ibid., p.121.
[18]. Acts 2:38-39 supports this notion: "Repent, and be baptized (water)... and you shall receive the gift of the Spirit."
[19]. Lyons. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p.121.
[20]. This is clearly Paul's perspective. Luke, as we will see, takes on a different meaning-- not contradictory but complementary.
[21]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.92.
[22]. James D.G. Dunn. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Philadelphia, Pa: Westminster Press, 1970.) p.44.
[23]. Numbers 11:10-30. See Stronstad. Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.59.
[24]. Ibid., p.13.
[25]. Taken from an outline of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit prepared by Grace Theological Seminary, p.78.
[26]. This is by no means exhaustive.
[27]. See also John 13:10; 17:6.
[28]. The use of this passage to support this position is without merit. Clearly those listening to Jesus were not equating 'ekklesia' with 'church' as we know it. Also Matthew is using a pre-Pentecost pericope in the context of a post-Pentecost church. Note also: The church is seen to have began either at the calling of the twelve, at Peters confession, or the Lord's Supper.(Martin, New Testament Foundations, p.71)
[29]. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Joy Unspeakable: Power and Renewal in the Holy Spirit. (Wheaton, ILL: Harold Shaw, 1984.) p.254.
[30]. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace, p.240.
[31]. Howard M. Ervin. Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Peabody, Mass: Henrickson Publishers, 1984.) p.52.
[32]. See John 7:37-39.
[33]. J.I. Packer. Keep in Step with the Spirit. (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell Co., 1984.) p.88.
[34]. Hummel. Fire in the fireplace, p.241. Note: that an impartation did actually take place when Jesus breathed on them.
[35]. The climax of the passage (vss 19-23) is not so much the impartation of the Spirit, but the disciple's responsibility regarding forgiveness of sins. John relates the impartation not to an inner experience but to vocational service-- that is the forgiveness of sin.
[36]. Ralph P. Martin. New Testament Foundations, vol.2. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.) p.73.
[37]. Kilian McDonald & George T. Montague. Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 31.
[38]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.181. Note: With regards to the Cornelius event in Acts, Peter writes that "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning." "As he had on us" is a reference to the prophetic activity of the Spirit at baptism.
[39]. Ibid., p.95. Note: At Pentecost, the 120, who were born and raised under the Old Covenant, received the gift of the Holy Spirit. No longer was the gift given to a select few, but to all who believed (Acts 2:17).
[40]. Ibid., p.95.
[41]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.53.
[42]. Ibid., p.53.
[43]. Ibid., p.54. Note: Both Peter (2:4; 4:8; 4:31) and Paul (9:17; 13:9) demonstrate the repetitive character of the filling of the Spirit.
[44]. Craig S. Keener, Three Questions about the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), p. 35.
[45]. See Lk 1:15,41,67; Ac 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9, 52.
[46]. Ibid., p.61.
[47]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. p.32. Note: Many dispensationalists argue, as does Merill Unger, that the "this is that" in Acts 2:16 means no more than "this is (an illustration of) that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel". (see Dunn, p.47)
[48]. Note that Paul's single use of the phrase "filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) parallels Luke's usage. For Paul the filling is a repetitive and is an activity which is "prophetic in the broad sense of teaching, counseling, praising, and giving thanks."(Hummel, p.117)
[49]. See also Luke 24:49.
[50]. Many say that Pentecostal are wrong to build such a doctrine from Act. In lieu of the discussion above concerning didactic and descriptive passages, this notion is incorrect. What Pentecostals and traditional theologians must begin to do is interpret passages of scripture in lieu of the author's purpose.
[51]. Speaking of this same incident, Acts 22:16 adds Ananias' statement to Paul, "And why do you delay? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." Clearly Ananias did not view Saul as a believer.
[52]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.102.
[53]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.66.
[54]. It should be noted that Luke's purpose is consistent in all these passages-- the mission of the church, not the inner spiritual experience of the believer.
[55]. See Michael Green. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.) p.134.
[56]. Dunn. Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p.83.
[57]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.68.
[58]. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace, p.105.
[59]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.68.
[60]. Howard M. Ervin suggests that the Samaritan account can be considered the 'Pentecost' of Samaria. See Conversion‑ Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p.25-39.
[61]. Green. I Believe in the Holy Spirit, p.138.
[62]. Ibid., p.138. Note: Acts 15 depicts how carefully the Jewish/Gentile split was avoided by early Christians.(Green, p.138)
[63]. Ibid., p.138.
[64]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.100.
[65]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.64. Hummel states, "when Luke's purpose guides interpretation, his meaning is clear. Here again, he teaches the prophetic or vocational role of the Spirit in the historical development of the church."(Hummel, p.101)
[66]. Dunn. Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p.81.
[67]. Ibid., p.67.
[68]. Green. I Believe in the Holy Spirit, p.141.
[69]. Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology, vol.6. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 19 .) p.142.
[70]. Note: Pentecostals do much to reconcile this verse with their view of a 'second work of grace'. They are now making the error of reading Luke into Paul. For example, Dennis Bennet sees two separate events in ICor 12:13. Spiritual baptism into Christ at regeneration, followed by the "baptism with the Holy Spirit in which the now indwelling Holy Spirit poured forth to manifest Jesus to the world through the life of the believer." See Bennet. The Holy Spirit and You. (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1979.) p.23.
[71]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.82.
[72]. Some Pentecostals will read "baptized into one body" as regeneration and "to drink of one Spirit" as a second experience. (Hummel, p.183)
[73]. Ibid., p.184. Note: Clark Pinnock recognizes that baptism is a "flexible metaphor, not a technical term."(Hummel, p.185)
[74]. Ibid., p.188. Note: Charles Hummel has done a marvelous job interpreting Luke and Paul according to their own perspective.
[75]. Thomas E. Trask & Wayne I. Goodall, The Blessing: Experiencing the Power of the Holy Spirit Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998) p. 27.
[76] This expression was introduced by Rich Nathan, Pastor of the Columbus Vineyard, & Ken Wilson, in their book, Empowered Evangelicals: Bringing Together the Best of the Evangelical and Charismatic Worlds, (Servant Publications, 1995).