pentecostal – LOVE | ACCEPT

MacArthur on Baptism in the Holy Spirit

John MacArthur examines the Charismatic sects of the Church in his book Charismatic Chaos. His well reasoned critique is an indictment of a a faith based upon experience when that experience supersedes the Bible. As I have examined in a series of posts on this topic, at the core of Charismatic belief is the Doctrine of Subsequence (Fee), the second event that follows salvation in which the Holy Spirit is received. This doctrine is constructed around the event recorded in Acts 2:4: (1-4 included for context)

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

The Charismatic believes that this post-salvation experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit is a mark of spiritual maturity. When the Christian is lacking this experience, they are immature, carnal, disobedient, or otherwise incomplete. The danger in this approach, MacArthur says, is that it opens the door to the expectation of continued experience. He denies the validity of Subsequence, primarily because of its reliance on a very narrow interpretation of Scripture that does not consider passages that refute the position.

MacArthur begins by saying that doctrine constructed around the experiences in the book of Acts should at least be consistent throughout that single book. Subsequence as seen in chapter two should be witnessed in each recorded instance of baptism but this does not appear to be the case. In Acts 2 and 8, there appears to be subsequence. In chapters 10 and 19 however, the filling of the Holy Spirit accompanies salvation immediately. A secondary component of the Subsequence doctrine is that the Christian is to be earnestly seeking this second baptism. The scriptures in Acts do not support this expectation. In chapter two, the believers were simply waiting for their next move and in chapters 8, 10, and 19, no one is looking for the baptism. On this brief examination alone, MacArthur points out that the book most closely associated with the idea of subsequence does not provide the consistent pattern necessary to build a Christian doctrine.

It’s important to note that MacArthur is not denying the singular experiences of Acts and other books of scripture. The theological construct that applies to proper exegesis of these events is to view them in light of the transitional nature of the period. There was an overlap in the periods between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and (MacArthur says) “Although the disciples knew and trusted Christ, there were still Old Testament believers. They could not have understood or experienced the Spirit’s permanent indwelling until the arrival of the Spirit at Pentecost.” (pg 177) In other words, markers defining transition served a specific, one time need in the establishment of the faith. MacArthur points out that this one time event is not meant to be translated as normative for all Christians.

No Fakin’ and Shakin’ Here – Holy Roller by Julie Lyons

Sister Johnson had a way of cutting through the mess. I found this out after I started teaching a Sunday-school class, replacing the previous teacher who quit unexpectedly. Standing in front of a roomful of adults, I asked a question: “Why do we sin?”

Sister Johnson, who was in her sixties, piped up as soon as the last word left my mouth.

“Because we want to.”

At that moment, a thousand volumes of Christian theology were rendered redundant.

Holy Roller is two parallel stories; the birth and growth of a black Pentecostal church and its pastor and a white writer who unknowingly stumbles into its midst and discovers that the heart of the faith she has been seeking in her life beats within this unfailingly honest body. Julie Lyons skillfully intertwines her story with that of the The Body of Christ Assembly and Pastor Frederick Eddington. Many churches attach the label ‘spirit-filled’ to their biographies but you often discover little of His presence once you in the walls of their meeting hall. Pastor Eddington and the Assembly on the other hand are true believers in the power of the Spirit and demonstrate the power of His work over and over in the life of the church and community beyond its crumbling walls.

Lyons weaves the story of her early ‘faith of facts’ with the charismata of the Spirit driven Church. The dichotomous church life of her early life is familiar to many evangelicals, a church experience where one is said but another is done. Cynicism of some measure had set in when she proposed a story to her editor about churches on the fringes of South Dallas and their ministry in the midst of a crack cocaine crisis. As she passed by numerous small churches with their lights turned out she finds herself in front of the tiny, ramshackle house that strained to hold the Holy Spirit’s work. A young girl (?) points out Pastor Eddington to Julie and she asks the questions that will quickly transform her life.

“Do you pray for crack addicts?”

“Yes” replied the pastor.

“Are they getting healed?” asked Julie.

“Some are.”

The story that follows in Holy Roller is a multi-threaded page-turner rooted in a faith that takes the promises of power in the Holy Spirit at face value, believing the Bible and its promises of transformed lives and demonstrating for the world to see that these things are indeed true. It is not a Christianity of constant theological argument over arcane points or concern with the finer points of Greek exegesis where the truths are analyzed but not necessarily applied. Lyons tells the story of moving from one world to another as she witnesses the changed lives she spends time with in becoming a part of the Body of Christ Assembly and the challenges that came with the shift.

Transformation is the heart of the story. Frederick Eddington moving from psychologically challenged man to pastor. His wife Diane changed from a party girl to the first lady of the church and Julie and Lyons who were exposed to new racial relationships and faith founded in the living Spirit. As expected, the integration is not always easy and significant challenges are recorded for all of the people we encounter. The common thread linking them together is a profound trust in the power of Christ to make things right, even if it doesn’t happen overnight. The average American evangelical reading this book is going to come to one of two conclusions as the pages are read. Either they will continue to view the Pentecostal church in a low church light and with considerable skepticism or they will view the evangelical church and its lack of Holy Spirit power as needing a restorative dose of reformation itself.

Mrs. Lyons is transparent in documenting her personal struggles alongside the challenges she encounters as a member of the church. She has done a stellar job of telling all of these disparate stories while passing a connecting thread through all of them. I became deeply enmeshed in the lives she reveals to us and spent a good deal of time contemplating the sometimes weak power of the Spirit in my own faith life. At the conclusion of the book, I was immediately set to reread it again and consider how I have personally viewed the work of the Spirit and consider whether I desire more of Him or more arguments over the Arminian/Calvinist divide. I’m pretty sure the Holy Ghost is going to win.

More information on the book can be found here.

The Pentecostal Perspective on Sanctification

Summarizing the Pentecostal doctrine on sanctification is either very easy or extraordinarily complex. The reason for this is the wide range of Christians that congregate under this umbrella and the corresponding wide range of application for this important aspect of the believer’s life. The doctrinal range extends from the very conservative two step positional-progressive sanctification to holiness as a second work of grace to be followed by baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Myer Pearlman (Knowing the Doctrines) provides the most general definition of the Pentecostal doctrine as including separation from sin and the world and dedication or consecration to the fellowship and service of God through Christ. This may translate into different practices among the believer groups; some will abstain from ‘wordly’ thing (e.g. tobacco, drink, short dresses) while others interpret this more liberally as simply the search for holiness according to specific biblical standards. In general however, the Pentecostal observes sanctification as occurring in the three familiar events. It is instantaneous at the moment of belief, where the new Christian is immediately set apart from sin. Sanctification is progressive as well, continuing throughout the term of one’s life as we are transformed into the likeness of Christ. Finally, using a term that can have a variety of definitions, there is entire sanctification. This final state is almost universally seen as occurring only at glorification when the believer passes into the immediate presence of the Lord.

Progressive sanctification is viewed as a tri-cooperative effort. Our progress comes through the work of the Holy Spirit, our cooperation as we surrender to His work, and through the Word of God (John 17:17). The Word of truth comes alive only through the intervention of the Spirit as He interprets for each believer how that truth applies to our lives. All of this combines to attain a maturity that God desires for us, continuing in this process until we return to our heavenly home.

Controversy arises when the doctrine of Baptism in the Spirit enters the discussion. Many of the Oneness (Jesus Only) Pentecostals take the extreme position that one cannot be saved (thus be sanctified) until receiving the baptism in the spirit and giving evidence through the gift of tongues. Trinitarian Pentecostals view the Baptism as a secondary event subsequent to regeneration. The Assemblies of God for example, sees the progressive sanctification and the visible change in their life as evidence of the infilling of the Spirit.

Conclusion

As stated in the initial paragraph, there is a wide range of belief in the Pentecostal congregations regarding sanctification and its application. For the most part, the combined instantaneous and progressive nature of this doctrine can be found in the statement of belief of nearly all of the churches. Ultimately, there is a common goal of holiness in the believer that is standard to all of the doctrines, something held in common with the Calvinist and Arminian doctrines as well.

Stott and Ervin on Spirit Baptism Part Three

(Part Two Here)

In this final post examining how John Stott and Howard Ervin contrast the different doctrines of Spirit Baptism, our attention turns to the idea of being filled with the spirit. The question at hand is whether this is a single event or series of fillings. Stott conservatively separates the baptismal event and subsequent episodes of being filled with the spirit. As stated in my second posting, Stott does not hear Scripture speaking of a secondary Baptism but he does take an interesting stance on the fullness of the Spirit when he says “that this gift needs to be continuously and increasingly appropriated.” He sees this infilling taking three forms. First, the normal condition of the Christian is to be “filled” with the Spirit (ie: Acts 11:24). The second form is a unique to an event or ministry. As an example, we are pointed to John the Baptist who was “filled with the Holy Spirit” in advance of his prophetic ministry. Similarly, in advance of Paul’s ascension to apostolic office (Acts 9:17) Ananias prays for him to be “filled with the Holy Spirit.” The third form of infilling, according to Stott, is a more temporal filling unique to an immediate task or emergency. Zechariah was filled prior to prophecy and Stephen prior to his martyrdom.

Dr. Ervin’s Pentecostal position is much easier to enumerate as he associates the full infilling with the Spirit Baptism. Viewing them as inseparable, he posits that for subsequent infilling events to occur, one must experience re-baptism, certainly a non-biblical notion. We must be mindful that this doctrine is developed predominantly from within the Lukan corpus and lies at the heart of the Pentecostal position on Spirit Baptism. When he turns to the Pauline instance in Ephesians 5:18:

Do not get drunk on win, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Ervin points out that the word for “be filled” is in the present tense, imperative mood, and passive voice. This leads the interpreter with a choice of a repeated action (be filled again and again) or a continuous action (be continuously filled with the Spirit). Good exegesis points us to the immediate context for guidance and in doing so we find a parallelism in the verse between the warning against getting drunk on wine and the encouragement rather, to be filled with the Spirit. The present imperative is used in the first component of the comparison (do not get drunk), consistent interpretation calls for the present imperative in the second half of the parallelism as well. As Ervin paraphrases the verse “Stop being habitually drunken with wine but be continuously filled with the Spirit.”

Conclusion

This is a secondary issue to a secondary doctrine but one that calls for greater consideration by all Christians. Brother Stott points our attention to John 7:37-39:

On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to received. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.”

Bishop J.C. Ryle wrote of this passage “It has been said that there are some passages in Scripture which deserve to be printed in letters of gold.” The Lord refers to a ritual of the Feast in which water from the pool of Siloam was poured out in prescience of the coming of the Spirit and that Jesus would provide this water to all who thirsted and came to Him to be relieved. As we meditate on this passage we can see that the empowerment of the Spirit is directly tied to our penitent approach to the Lord. Not only that, but this living water will stream from us to others infusing our ministry with power. Whether the Christian views this as a fresh filling of the power of the Spirit or a further releasing of the pent up power within us, we do well to continue our repeated approaches to the throne so that the streams might flow into and out of us all.

Stott and Ervin on Spirit Baptism Part Two

(Part One here)

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. [Acts 2:1-4]

At Pentecost, the disciples find themselves huddled together awaiting the gift that their Lord had promised to them. And come it did, with fire and the evidence of the newfound gift of tongues. The question for us, two thousand years later, is how we shall interpret this and other similar incidents recorded in the passages of scripture? Are they normative such that we should continue to expect their repetition or were they miraculous events that occurred once and should be understood as fulfilling a unique need at a moment in history? In the immediate context of the passage, the gift of speaking in foreign tongues served a timely purpose as the 12 were to communicate with the myriad peoples of many nations assembled in Jerusalem (vv 5-13). Peter and the other disciples stood before a crowd and associated the day with the prophesy of Joel:

And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. [Joel 2:28-32]

Old Testament prophesy is seen by Peter as associated with the baptism of the Spirit spoken of by John the Baptist and Jesus. As he speaks to the crowd in vv 38, calling them to repent, he has in mind that they will receive the two incomparable gifts promised by the Lord, the forgiveness of sin and bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

Neither Stott nor Ervin disputes that these twin blessings are to be expected and greeted by the Christian. The question comes in the issue of subsequence; does the Spirit Baptism occur distinctly separate from the moment of conversion? Stott is among those who say no, that the Spirit indwells all believers as a step in the conversion event. He points to the plain reading of Acts 2:40-41 in which 3,000 blessed souls are saved, receiving the forgiveness and the indwelling of Spirit simultaneously. Exegetically, Stott is cautious in separating the unique experience of 120 and the believers who enter the kingdom subsequently. His hermeneutic framework does not find the narrative passages in Acts appropriate for deriving a doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit. He reminds us that “it is a fundamental principle of biblical interpretation to begin with the general, not the special.” A more appropriate interpretive passage regarding the timing of the indwelling is seen in Galatians 3:14 “…by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.” The context of the passage makes it clear that this “faith” is not a second, subsequent act of belief but the saving belief of conversion.

What of the two further incidents mentioned in Acts in which there appears to be a separation between conversion and Spirit indwelling? In Acts 8:5-17, one encounters the Samaritan believers, converted upon hearing the gospel from Philip the evangelist. With the exception of Simon the sorcerer, there is nothing out of the ordinary in the saving event of these believers except for the fact that these were Samaritans. Philip’s boldness in proclaiming the gospel in Samaria for the first time and the response of the people is nothing short of astonishing. Not only had Philip, a Jew, preached the gospel to the Samaritans despite the bitter rivalry that existed between the two peoples, they had accepted the word and believed! Here Stott poses an important question in understanding why Peter and John would need to make a trip to see these believers firsthand. “Is it not reasonable to suppose that it was precisely in order to avoid the development of such a situation (Jewish-Samaritan estrangement causing a schism in the new Church) that God deliberately withheld the gift of His Spirit from the Samaritan believers until two of the leading Apostles came down to investigate” and confirm the conversion by laying on of hands? The unique nature of this incident and the inability to repeat it makes this situation inappropriate as precedent for today in the development of doctrine.

The second incident is found in Acts 19:1-7 where we encounter the Ephesian disciples. The question that must be examined in this context is whether or not the ‘disciples’ were truly Christian disciples. Certainly, Paul refers to them as such but the reader must discern of whom they were disciples. Stott makes the case that their lack of knowledge of Jesus and the Holy Spirit marks them as non-Christian disciples. The repentance of John’s baptism must be followed by belief in the work of the Cross before one can claim the title of Christian disciple and it appears here that this was not the case.

Pentecostal theologian Ervin asks us to consider a different hermeneutic in which events must be interpreted in the context of history transitioning from the old covenant to the new covenant. He points us to John chapter 20 in which we find the disciples huddled frightened and in despair until the Lord appears to them with the greeting “Peace be with you!” and then breathed upon them, imparting the Holy Spirit to them. This moment marks the culmination of the old Sinai covenant and a new nation created in The Church. This imparting of the Spirit is to be interpreted as one that equips the believer for service and, by extension and in view of the Church’s commission, is a necessity for all members of the body. He further states “In the Pentecostal hermeneutic, repentance, faith, and water baptism constitute conversion and initiation into the new covenant community. Repentance and faith are the results of the Spirit’s action in the spiritual experience of the convert. These elements are the conditions for the new birth from above, for apart from the Holy Spirit convicting of sin there can be neither repentance nor faith. They are, therefore, sequentially prior to the Lukan gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The reason that Ervin brings up the Johannine experience is to draw the difference between that and the Pentecost experience(s) of Acts as recorded by Luke. John’s new birth message is ontological, it is a change in one’s nature where Luke’s gift of the spirit is functional, preparing one for service. Is the experience of Acts normative though? Ervin supports it by dismissing the assertion that Pentecost was a “once and for all” event in the church’s history by pointing to the narrative of Cornelius in Acts 10 which was separated from the event by at least ten years. He further disagrees with Stott as he points out that so long as the Great Commission of our Lord remains in effect, so too the need for Baptism in the Spirit as experienced at Pentecost will remain in order to supply the Holy Spirit power through which it will be accomplished.

The Pentecostal insists that the passages in Acts which describe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are normative for Christian experience and are sufficient from which to derive a doctrine on this subject. The reasoning forwarded for establishing this position is that there are no other recorded experiences due to the fact that later authors would not see it as necessary since the experience was taken for granted that readers would already be familiar with it. We must turn to the Acts narratives for information on this and therefore, it is authoritative on this topic. Ervin gives 5 propositions that support this theological position:

1.John the Baptist’s baptism supplied the type for the baptism in the Spirit. (cf Acts 1:5) The baptism of Jesus places the Christian in Spirit.

2. Jesus himself is the administrator of this Spirit-baptism.

3. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is not synonymous with conversion and the new birth from above. Instead, it is subsequent to conversion and regeneration.

4. There will be normative evidence of this Spirit Baptism in the form of charismatic manifestations of the Spirit’s personality and power.

5. Baptism in the Spirit is synonymous (in Luke) with being filled with the spirit.

Grammatically, the description of the first Spirit Baptism (Acts 2:1-4 see above) contains the word translated “they were filled” in the ingressive aorist tense, meaning that the verb indicates a state or condition and denotes the entry into that state or condition. In other words, they moved from one state to another, that of being filled with the Spirit. In the narrative of the Samaritan Believers (Acts 8:14-17), Ervin reads this passage in the framework described in the previous paragraphs and therefore sees a clear subsequence to the conversion/Spirit baptism sequence. He does not engage the possibility that there may be a reason for God to have withheld the Spirit from this group of believers. Addressing the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19, Ervin does acknowledge that they may have had an incomplete presentation of the gospel to which they responded but he does not allow for the possibility that they may not have been regenerate, instead electing to emphasize the ordering of the process with conversion baptism preceding Spirit Baptism.

Conclusion

Both theologians offer conservative and reasonable exegesis in the original language and with appropriate Old Testament reference. As a secondary issue, it appears that one will follow the doctrine that best fits their overall theological framework. That is, unless they find themselves with experiential evidence that contributes to a reading of the narratives in a different light. Shall we divide fellowship over this? In no way.

A Single Thesis on the Church Door

I have called a heretic, labeled a fool, told that I am obviously too simple to understand the errors in my thinking, and virtually challenged to a duel by a self-proclaimed expert on Reformed theology. I have seen others abused, taunted in verse and lyric, and categorized as clowns for their theological positions. The overall tenor of debate over matters theological is becoming more and more rancorous and divisive with one recent posting labeling all of those in Christ’s church who don’t believe as the writer did as “deceived” and headed to Hell. This atmosphere has caused me to sharply curtail my posting in recent weeks as I reevaluated any contribution that it might have to greater work of the Church.

And then I reread a favorite quote by Annie Dillard…

On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest ideas of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews.

Pride abounds in certain theological circles with much chest pounding among writers over sudden revelations in life that cause them to suddenly pledge allegiance to one systematic way of interpreting the Bible or another. Where Pride rules, charity vanishes and it has become de rigueur to label any other theological system heretical at worst, and childish and misguided at best. We would do well to consider the many who came before us who were martyred as heretics only to be exonerated with the passage of time. Where would the English speaking world be without the first steps of William Tyndale?

I would implore those who judge another Christian’s belief to consider what spiritual gift they have been given that allows them to peer into the heart of another man and discern the work that God is doing there. Is it a biblical gift? Can you provide others with chapter and verse so that we might study it? Until such time as you are absolutely certain that one position is correct and another is not (and remember, one rapidly growing church gains assurance of the correctness of their theology through a burning in the bosom), we would all do well to remember the Lord’s words in John 17:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

To paraphrase Miss Dillard, remember who it is we write about so blithely…

The Role of Glossolalia According to Lukan Theology «

Brian LePort has a great discussion going on regarding Glossolalia (Tongues) at The Role of Glossolalia According to Lukan Theology «. This is pertinent material if you’ve been reading the various views on Spirit Baptism that have been posted here.

Spirit Baptism: The Wesleyan View

Having examined the Pentecostal and Charismatic positions on Baptism in the Holy Spirit, is it necessary to further analyze the general Wesleyan tradition for its position as well? With both of these movements acknowledged as children of Wesley, it is often assumed that their views mirror those of the parent but as with human children, this is certainly not the case. The thread of Wesleyan thought runs through numerous ministries so it will be necessary to speak in generalities that may be superceded by doctrinal distinctives within a particular denomination. After all, Wesley’s influence runs through such wide ranging bodies as the United Methodist Church, the Nazarenes, AME, countless Holiness ministries, and the Salvation Army. It is also crucial to note that Wesleyan Christianity has been, and continues to be, inherently practical and its primary concerns have been the preaching of the message of Salvation and in teaching the principles of Holy Living (Buschart, Protestant Traditions). In other words, theology is the servant of ministry and the practice of theological inquiry is driven by the requirements of answering questions related to daily living as a Christian.

A hallmark of Wesleyan tradition is the ideal of Entire Sanctification; the call to live a life of sanctified holiness which manifests through loving deeds. The message of the Wesley’s, in John’s preaching and Charles’ hymns, is holiness. The work of the Holy Spirit in this is to transform imputed righteousness into imparted righteousness, that is, not only can one be set aside as holy through the saving work of Christ but one can become holy in day to day living. Wesley is quick to note that this process of sanctification or perfection, as it is sometimes called, is ongoing through the life of the Christian and does not meet its final conclusion until the moment of glory. It is here that the idea of Spirit Baptism enters the discussion though it is far from a universal topic. Most classical Wesleyans associate perfection/sanctification with a ‘second blessing’ or a distinct work of God separate from conversion. The Church of the Nazarene, for example, teaches that entire sanctification is “wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration.” (Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene) Especially in those traditions that were born in the 19th century Holiness movement, this second blessing is associated with baptism of the Holy Spirit. Verses that we have already examined such as Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:1-21 are found again to form the foundation of this belief in a distinct experience that is subsequent to conversion.

Holiness is the charism received by the Christian at the moment of this second blessing say the Wesleyans (contra tongues and prophecy). The Holy Spirit cleanses the believer from their sin, enabling them to live Christlike lives moving consistently toward greater holiness. By His grace and power, people are enabled to restore the image of the God of Love within them and present an image that cries “Be holy as I am holy.” The Spirit-driven process of ongoing sanctification is not only evidence to the Christian of the Lord’s work in them but a proclamation to the world that they too can partake in the restoration offered by the Loving God.

Find other views on Spirit Baptism here.

Spirit Baptism: The Charismatic View

The Charismatic movement within the Christian Body traces it roots to a renewal that swept through the Church in the 1960s and 70s. The name of this broadly ecumenical movement derives from the Greek word translated as “gifts”, charisma (χάρισμα), while its theological roots were planted by early Pentecostal tradition. While many people consider Pentecostal and Charismatic believers to be one and the same, the Charismatic theological framework is not as dogmatic with regards to the subsequence of the Baptism in the Spirit and the evidence of tongues. Settled on the reality of Spirit Baptism and the need to practice all of the New Testament spiritual gifts including prophecy, discernment, tongues, healing, and miracles, Charismatics are nonetheless liberal in the belief as to when the baptism occurs and what gifts are evidenced and allow a wide range of belief on these matters. Making the Charismatic view even more unusual in Christian history is that the movement largely has not been known for creating new churches of like minded believers. The Charismatic believer will often be a force for change, or renewal, within the broader Catholic and Protestant bodies.

Since there is no single Charismatic position on spirit baptism, its effects, or its timing, how can we understand what it means to be a Charismatic believer? Perhaps the best framework in which to find the answers is found by viewing Spirit Baptism as a metaphor with multiple dimensions rather than a doctrine. Larry Hart categorizes the Baptism as (1) Jesus’ eschatological redemptive work; (2) Christian initiation; (3) the Christian life; and (4) empowerment for Christian mission and ministry. All of these factors contribute to an overall pneumatology and experience. Searching the Bible to understand the Charismatic worldview takes us far ranging from the book of Acts, as each author emphasized a different dimension of the Spirit’s work and effect. This counters the criticism often leveled at the Pentecostal reliance on the narrative passages in Acts by including the Johanine and Pauline corpus in the mix. “All that Jesus has done as the Messiah (Jewish language), the Christ (Greek language), in his earthly ministry and since his ascension–is subsumed under the Spirit baptism rubric.” (Hart) In other words, the Baptism in the Spirit has a place and is effectual in every aspect of our Christian life from initiation through the progression of sanctification and in the empowerment of our ministry.

This broad range of experience in the Charismatic viewpoint lessens the reliance on a specific timing and a single crisis event. Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a defining moment for the Christian, however and whenever it is experienced. Rather than a single moment in time, the Charismatic confirms the continual outworking of the Spirit in the process of sanctification and in the receipt of power for ministry. The expansive collection of views on the timing of the Baptism extends to the views of evidence in tongues. The view of speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of Spirit Baptism is a Pentecostal doctrinal distinctive. Charismatics characteristically have a wide range of views on this gift, ranging from being like-minded with the Pentecostal to the viewing of empowerment for all of the Gifts as evidence of the Baptism. The Charismatic typically looks for all of the gifts mentioned in the Bible to be distributed throughout the body rather than seeking the monolithic practice of a single gift. Within the Body, some should speak in tongues and some should heal and some should express wisdom, etc. Requiring tongues to be the sole evidence of Spiritual indwelling runs contrary to Scripture according to the Charismatic viewpoint.

Charismatic believers are dispersed throughout the Body in a way that mimics Paul’s teaching on the Gifts of the Spirit. All Christians will receive the Spirit Baptism for empowerment in their lives; it is releasing ourselves to the experience that sets the Charismatic apart. As the Church is surrendered to this empowerment, further revival will be the evidence of the Father’s glory, the Son’s loving sacrifice, and the Spirit’s work. The combination of a head and heart Christianity is especially attractive in this postmodern culture as more and more people look for something more than facts that feed their intellect.

Other views on Spirit Baptism can be found here.

Spirit Baptism: The Pentecostal View

“The person and the work of the Holy Spirit constitute a central and pervasive emphasis in Pentecostal theology.” (Buschart, Exploring Protestant Traditions) Of all members of the Christian body, the Pentecostal description applies to those who established the doctrine of a second baptism in the Holy Spirit along with evidence of that baptism as seen in the evidence of speaking in tongues. Pentecostals maintain that Spirit Baptism is normative for all Christians and that the crisis event is subsequent to the moment of conversion. Because of all that naturally flows from the Baptism, this tenet is central to Pentecostal doctrine and forms its heart. It is rooted in God’s promise as enunciated by the prophet Joel (2:28-29)

‘And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

The narrative passages in Acts build the foundation for the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit Baptism. As mentioned in my earlier post on the Evangelical position, receiving the the Holy Spirit is a common thread through almost all of the Body. The timing of receiving the Spirit is what sets the Pentecostal apart. Jesus’ disciples are seen as having entered the new covenant (i.e. been converted) by the death of Christ (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:11-29, 10:10, cf Jeremiah 31:31-34) and in the opening chapters of Acts, the disciples are seen as waiting in the upper room for the gift that the Father would visit upon them as promised by the Lord (Acts 1:4). As the Church, they engage in the selection of new leadership (1:16-26) and practice constant prayer (1:14). This prayer serves as a prelude to the receipt of the Spirit, famously recorded at Pentecost in Acts 2. It is this pattern, repeated again in the chapters of Acts that follow that lead the Pentecostal believer to establish it as normative. [ Phillip and the Samaritans – believed and were baptized 8:12 >> Peter & John lay hands on them and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit 8:14-17. Saul’s Conversion – accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior by his obedience 9:6 >> Ananias prays for him and he receives the Holy Spirit 9:17. The Gentile Believers – 11:15-17 Peter once again recounts the Holy Spirit coming upon those who have already believed (Aorist Active Participle – vv 17 pisteusasin “having believed”)]

Pentecostalism takes it name from the watershed event in Acts 2 and also sees a secondary event that follows the Spirit Baptism as being normative in the believer who receives the gift; the evidence of speaking in tongues. We see this phenomenon (non-pejorative usage e.g. Williams Renewal Theology V.2) in verse 2:4, preceding Peter’s address to the multitude (2:14-36), after the Spirit had been poured out on the Gentile believers (10:45-46), and when Paul lays hands on the Ephesian believers 19:6. It is implied elsewhere, including the Paul’s reference to the gift (1 Cor 14:18) even though Acts is silent on the practice at his Baptism. The Assemblies of God Fundamental Beliefs contain this reference to the gift:

8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.

Acts 2:4 [NIV]

The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use.

1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [NIV]
1 Corinthians 12:28 [NIV]

What is the purpose of Spirit Baptism, according to our Pentecostal brethren? It is a point of empowerment for greater witness on behalf of and in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) The Spirit has certainly moved within the Church, stirring revival among Pentecostal believers and energizing them for growth and tireless missionary works.