-------------------------
This is a long article, so we will split it into sections for easier digestion. Part two here. Part three here. Part four here.
Even though we have covered many of the below arguments elsewhere in this blog, there is some new material contained in the author's presentation.
Before we start we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to a biblical argument. In fact, he barely manages to quote more than snippets of Scripture.
This is a long article, so we will split it into sections for easier digestion. Part two here. Part three here. Part four here.
Even though we have covered many of the below arguments elsewhere in this blog, there is some new material contained in the author's presentation.
Before we start we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to a biblical argument. In fact, he barely manages to quote more than snippets of Scripture.
We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must
It is with a certain irony the we embrace the reformationist cry, "Sola Scriptura!" Let the cessationist make his case only from Scripture.
-----------------------
Introduction
The Charismatic movement is one of the most popular and growing forces within Christendom today. The major doctrinal distinctives of the Charismatic movement—the baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing and the emphasis on having a personal experience—are primary reasons for the movement’s growth and popularity. While growth and popularity are certainly desirable, they cannot be used as a test for truth-claims, because various cults (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons) and false religions (e.g., Islam, Eastern mysticism) have also witnessed great popularity and growth. (The author attempts to insinuate that Charismatics are like cultists.)
The Charismatic movement is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Since the teachings and practices of the Charismatic movement are different than what orthodox Christians (That is, "Theologians with whom I agree.")
have taught for 19 centuries, (This is an appeal to history, not the Bible.
We would venture to guess the author is a premillenial dispensationalist, a doctrine which John Nelson Darby invented in the mid 1800s. We wonder if the eschatology of the 1800 years prior to Darby is similarly important to the author.)
we believe it is wise to examine these teachings under the light of Scripture. (His promise is restated. Let's see if he sticks with it.)
We are not saying that Charismatics are not Christians. And we are not examining their distinctives because we dislike Charismatics personally (the author was a Charismatic for over three years, and many of his friends are still Charismatic). God commands us to “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Th. 5:21 [1]). We are commanded to “hold fast the faithful word” and “refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9 NASB). Thus, we offer this booklet in the spirit of Christian love—love for our brethren, and above all, love for God’s truth. In examining any issue, the most important question is, “What saith the scripture?” (Gal. 4:30 KJV). (Indeed, we await the biblical case with bated breath.)
Baptism in the Holy Spirit
One of the hallmarks of the Charismatic movement is what is called Spirit-baptism or the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” The baptism in the Holy Spirit is regarded as an experience that usually happens after conversion. Most Charismatics would say that at conversion a Christian receives the Holy Spirit. But only at the subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit does the Christian receive the fullness of the Spirit, the full empowerment for Christian service. Many but not all Charismatics believe that Spirit-baptism is always accompanied with the gift of speaking in tongues as evidence for the baptism. Spirit-baptism is considered a second work of grace; that is, one can be a genuine Christian yet not be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion is the cornerstone of Pentecostal theology. (Hmm. a different word. "Pentecostal" does not mean the same thing as "charismatic.")
If this doctrine is unbiblical, we should regard the Charismatic movement as unbiblical. (Well, no. This is tantamount to suggesting that any error in any belief by any Christians means all of their beliefs are in error. This of course is preposterous.)
The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Thus, our experiences, impressions and feelings must be subordinated to what the Bible teaches. (Which, ironically is a position held by charismatics as well.
But let's see how well the author's positions are subordinated to the Bible.)
Does the Bible teach that every Christian should seek the baptism in the Spirit? (The charismatic use of this language to describe their beliefs is impeding understanding. We shall refer to the event of receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation as the "baptism in the Holy Spirit." We shall further refer to the need to have fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit as being "filled with the Holy Spirit."
Charismatics talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit are in fact really referring to being filled/refilled.)
Or does the Bible teach that the outpouring of the Spirit was a unique historical event related to Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God the Father? (The author offers us a false binary choice. Pentecost and being filled with the Spirit sometime after salvation are separate things.)
If the outpouring was a crucial aspect of salvation history (like the resurrection and ascension), then we must regard it as a non-repeatable, once-for-all event. (We should again like to offer that Pentecost is not the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. One is an event of history, the other is an individual continual occurrence.)
Pentecost marked “the final transition from the old era of shadows and types to the new era of fulfillment. Pentecost was the birthday of the Christian church, the beginning of the age of the Spirit. In this sense, therefore, Pentecost can never be repeated, and does not need to be repeated.” [2] (Agreed.)
The first reason that Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event in salvation history is the fact that the outpouring of the Spirit was a prophesied event. Peter specifically says that Pentecost is the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: “This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.” (Let's quote the entire passage. Ac. 2:17:
Aren't we still in the Last Days? Do we not yet await wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below at the end of the age? Doesn't all people mean all people, both at the moment of Pentecost as well as every succeeding generation of Christians? Shouldn't we also be expecting dreams and visions as a result of the poured out Spirit?
Therefore, how is it possible that the event of Pentecost restricts the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit in these last days?)
John the Baptist said of Christ, “This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; cf. Mk. 1:7-8, Lk. 3:16). Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would be poured out after His ascension: “It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you” (Jn. 16:7; cf. Ac. 1:5).
The second reason Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event is the way Scripture connects Pentecost with Christ’s glorification or enthronement at the right hand of God. Jesus Christ, as the divine-human mediator, humbled Himself, obeyed the law in exhaustive detail, and suffered and died as a vicarious atonement for the sins of His people. After His resurrection, God exalted Christ and glorified Him as the divine-human mediator (in His divine nature, Christ could not receive any more glory or exaltation, because He was God). An aspect of Christ’s glorification is His baptizing His church with the Holy Spirit. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:39). In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter explains what occurred: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear” (Ac. 2:33). The participles “being exalted” and “having received” are both aorist [3]; the verb “poured out” is also aorist. Thus it is evident that Peter was talking about a historical fact not an ongoing process. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the church are all treated in Scripture as historical events in salvation-history, never to be repeated. (We of course agree that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God only once. We also agree that "having received" happened only once. But the quoted passage then proceeds further in sequence. That is, the two previous events are used to establish the reason for the what was currently happening: He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear.
- be biblically based
- not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
- not appeal to silence
- not appeal to events or practices of history
It is with a certain irony the we embrace the reformationist cry, "Sola Scriptura!" Let the cessationist make his case only from Scripture.
-----------------------
Introduction
The Charismatic movement is one of the most popular and growing forces within Christendom today. The major doctrinal distinctives of the Charismatic movement—the baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing and the emphasis on having a personal experience—are primary reasons for the movement’s growth and popularity. While growth and popularity are certainly desirable, they cannot be used as a test for truth-claims, because various cults (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons) and false religions (e.g., Islam, Eastern mysticism) have also witnessed great popularity and growth. (The author attempts to insinuate that Charismatics are like cultists.)
The Charismatic movement is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Since the teachings and practices of the Charismatic movement are different than what orthodox Christians (That is, "Theologians with whom I agree.")
have taught for 19 centuries, (This is an appeal to history, not the Bible.
We would venture to guess the author is a premillenial dispensationalist, a doctrine which John Nelson Darby invented in the mid 1800s. We wonder if the eschatology of the 1800 years prior to Darby is similarly important to the author.)
we believe it is wise to examine these teachings under the light of Scripture. (His promise is restated. Let's see if he sticks with it.)
We are not saying that Charismatics are not Christians. And we are not examining their distinctives because we dislike Charismatics personally (the author was a Charismatic for over three years, and many of his friends are still Charismatic). God commands us to “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Th. 5:21 [1]). We are commanded to “hold fast the faithful word” and “refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9 NASB). Thus, we offer this booklet in the spirit of Christian love—love for our brethren, and above all, love for God’s truth. In examining any issue, the most important question is, “What saith the scripture?” (Gal. 4:30 KJV). (Indeed, we await the biblical case with bated breath.)
Baptism in the Holy Spirit
One of the hallmarks of the Charismatic movement is what is called Spirit-baptism or the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” The baptism in the Holy Spirit is regarded as an experience that usually happens after conversion. Most Charismatics would say that at conversion a Christian receives the Holy Spirit. But only at the subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit does the Christian receive the fullness of the Spirit, the full empowerment for Christian service. Many but not all Charismatics believe that Spirit-baptism is always accompanied with the gift of speaking in tongues as evidence for the baptism. Spirit-baptism is considered a second work of grace; that is, one can be a genuine Christian yet not be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion is the cornerstone of Pentecostal theology. (Hmm. a different word. "Pentecostal" does not mean the same thing as "charismatic.")
If this doctrine is unbiblical, we should regard the Charismatic movement as unbiblical. (Well, no. This is tantamount to suggesting that any error in any belief by any Christians means all of their beliefs are in error. This of course is preposterous.)
The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Thus, our experiences, impressions and feelings must be subordinated to what the Bible teaches. (Which, ironically is a position held by charismatics as well.
But let's see how well the author's positions are subordinated to the Bible.)
Does the Bible teach that every Christian should seek the baptism in the Spirit? (The charismatic use of this language to describe their beliefs is impeding understanding. We shall refer to the event of receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation as the "baptism in the Holy Spirit." We shall further refer to the need to have fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit as being "filled with the Holy Spirit."
Charismatics talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit are in fact really referring to being filled/refilled.)
Or does the Bible teach that the outpouring of the Spirit was a unique historical event related to Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God the Father? (The author offers us a false binary choice. Pentecost and being filled with the Spirit sometime after salvation are separate things.)
If the outpouring was a crucial aspect of salvation history (like the resurrection and ascension), then we must regard it as a non-repeatable, once-for-all event. (We should again like to offer that Pentecost is not the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. One is an event of history, the other is an individual continual occurrence.)
Pentecost marked “the final transition from the old era of shadows and types to the new era of fulfillment. Pentecost was the birthday of the Christian church, the beginning of the age of the Spirit. In this sense, therefore, Pentecost can never be repeated, and does not need to be repeated.” [2] (Agreed.)
The first reason that Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event in salvation history is the fact that the outpouring of the Spirit was a prophesied event. Peter specifically says that Pentecost is the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: “This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.” (Let's quote the entire passage. Ac. 2:17:
“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. 21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."The author will later attempt to debunk prophecy and miracles. Can we suppose his omission of the balance of this passage is so he doesn't have to explain it?
Aren't we still in the Last Days? Do we not yet await wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below at the end of the age? Doesn't all people mean all people, both at the moment of Pentecost as well as every succeeding generation of Christians? Shouldn't we also be expecting dreams and visions as a result of the poured out Spirit?
Therefore, how is it possible that the event of Pentecost restricts the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit in these last days?)
John the Baptist said of Christ, “This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; cf. Mk. 1:7-8, Lk. 3:16). Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would be poured out after His ascension: “It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you” (Jn. 16:7; cf. Ac. 1:5).
The second reason Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event is the way Scripture connects Pentecost with Christ’s glorification or enthronement at the right hand of God. Jesus Christ, as the divine-human mediator, humbled Himself, obeyed the law in exhaustive detail, and suffered and died as a vicarious atonement for the sins of His people. After His resurrection, God exalted Christ and glorified Him as the divine-human mediator (in His divine nature, Christ could not receive any more glory or exaltation, because He was God). An aspect of Christ’s glorification is His baptizing His church with the Holy Spirit. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:39). In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter explains what occurred: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear” (Ac. 2:33). The participles “being exalted” and “having received” are both aorist [3]; the verb “poured out” is also aorist. Thus it is evident that Peter was talking about a historical fact not an ongoing process. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the church are all treated in Scripture as historical events in salvation-history, never to be repeated. (We of course agree that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God only once. We also agree that "having received" happened only once. But the quoted passage then proceeds further in sequence. That is, the two previous events are used to establish the reason for the what was currently happening: He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear.
"Now." Not in the past. This "pouring out" is brand new, something that hadn't happened before. It was happening right before their eyes.
Peter then tells us it was happening to fulfill Joel's prophecy. And as we have noted, it was for all people. Each generation, each born again believer, will personally experience Pentecost.)
The third reason Pentecost must be regarded as a unique historical event is the fact that after Pentecost (with the exception of Ac. 8:14-17, which will be discussed later) believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit are simultaneous. The account of Peter’s preaching the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34-48 reveals that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed. At the climax of Peter’s sermon, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. That Peter equated their baptism in the Spirit with their salvation is clear from the fact that Peter immediately “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac. 10:48). “The norm is salvation and the Spirit at the same time. The Apostle Peter was present and therefore he could report to the church council (made up of Jews) that the Gentiles were true believers. At the same time, the Gentiles would recognize apostolic authority because Peter had been with them and indeed [was] the one who led them to Christ. And both groups knew they had the same Holy Spirit.” [4] Note that the focus of Acts 10 and 11 is not how to receive the Holy Spirit or how to receive a second blessing, for the Gentiles did not ask for or seek Spirit-baptism. The point of both chapters is to show that “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Ac. 11:18). (The author never explains why Pentecost is the same thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit. It's puzzling indeed that the author insists that the historical Pentecost happened once [which we agree], but then proceeds to list various events when subsequent believers received the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was indeed poured out at Pentecost. But that does not mean the fullness of the Holy Spirit is received, or even retained, at salvation. The Holy Spirit is not a historical event, He's a indwelling presence.
We believe Scripture is clear in that each Christian can appropriate an increasing measure of the Holy Spirit, and that Scripture clearly commands us to seek more of Him.
Let's start with the testimony of Jesus. Lk. 11:13:
This collection of passages should be sufficient to refute the author's contention that the Holy Spirit is given once and there is nothing more to be had.)
A passage which has been often used as a proof text for receiving Spirit-baptism subsequent to believing is Acts 19:1-7. The use of this passage by Pentecostals (Again, term-switching.) is based on a faulty translation in the King James Version: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” (v. 2). The passage literally says in the Greek, “The Holy Spirit did you receive, having believed?” The New King James accurately translates the passage: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” This passage is actually an excellent proof text against the Charismatic doctrine of receiving the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after salvation. Why? Because Paul’s question assumes that in the normal course of events, salvation and Spirit-baptism occur at the same time. The fact that the disciples of John the Baptist had not even heard of the Holy Spirit indicated that they had not received Christian baptism and were still Old Covenant believers and not yet Christians. The problem for these followers of John the Baptist was not that they needed a second work of grace but that they needed to believe in Jesus Christ. After believing and being baptized they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Why was it necessary for the Apostle Paul to lay hands on these men? The laying on of hands in Acts 19:6 (like that in Ac. 8:17) is related to the unique authority of the apostles. Otherwise there would have been no need for the Samaritans to wait for the apostles (Ac. 8). “It seems he did it to show them as Jews that it was no longer John the Baptist’s teaching they were to follow but the teaching of the Apostles.” [5]
What about Acts 8:14-17? Does not this passage record that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit after believing in Christ? Yes, it does. (Oops. The author concedes the argument.)
But this passage still does not support the Charismatic doctrine of subsequence as a normal state of affairs. This passage is an excellent proof text against the Charismatic movement. For if what Charismatics teach is true, the evangelist Philip would have encouraged these new believers to pray and seek the second blessing. (Argument from silence.)
Philip, who was a great miracle worker (unlike modern Charismatics), did not teach anyone to seek, or plead, or empty himself in order to receive Spirit-baptism. (Argument from silence.)
The fact that God did not baptize the Samaritans with the Holy Spirit until the laying on of the hands of the apostles is clearly due to the unique historical situation at that time. (Speculation with no scriptural documentation supplied.)
Because of the racial hatred between the Samaritans and Jews, it was necessary for both the Jewish apostles and the Samaritans that the laying on of hands take place. The apostles approved the Samaritans as accepted by God in Christ and full partners in the kingdom. The Samaritans recognized that the Jewish apostles were the authoritative leaders in the church. If this passage were normative for the modern church, then we should teach that all believers must wait for the laying on of hands by an apostle before receiving Spirit-baptism. (Scripture does not teach this. 1Ti. 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. It was elders, not the apostles, who did this.)
Thus, the only passage which could be used to support a doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of grace after salvation proves too much. If Charismatics were consistent, they would not seek Holy Spirit-baptism but simply wait for an apostle to stop by. The last genuine apostle died almost 1900 years ago. (The author uses as evidence what is yet to be proved.)
Not only does the book of Acts not support the Charismatic doctrine of subsequence, the epistles explicitly deny such a doctrine. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul says that all Christians have been baptized in the Spirit. “You don’t need to seek a Spirit-baptism as a post-conversion experience, Paul is saying to the Corinthians and to us; if you are in Christ, you have already been Spirit-baptized!” [6] (Which actually does not address the issue at hand. We concede that the Holy Spirit is in every Christian. The passage says nothing at all about having more of the Holy Spirit.)
Some Charismatic writers have attempted to circumvent the clear teaching of this passage by an appeal to the Word “by” in the KJV. They argue that “by one Spirit” is different than “in one Spirit.” The only problem with this argument is that the Greek word en (translated “by” in v. 13) can also be translated “in” or “with.” Thus the baptism in the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is identical to every occurrence in the book of Acts. [7] Other Charismatic writers claim that the first part of the passage refers to conversion and the second part to Spirit-baptism. This interpretation is rendered impossible by Paul’s use of the word “all.” Paul says that all members belong to one body. If Paul was referring to two separate groups, he could not have used the word “all.” “Verse 13, then, plainly teaches (1) that all believers share in the gift of the Spirit and (2) that they do so from the time of their incorporation into the body of Christ. This verse is the hard rock which shatters all constructions of the Holy Spirit baptism as an additional, post-conversion, second-blessing experience” [8]
The teaching that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit at conversion is supported by other passages. (Again repeating what no one disputes.)
Paul spends much of Romans chapter 8 discussing the Holy Spirit. Does Paul ever hint at the idea that receiving the Holy Spirit is a two-stage process? No. Paul clearly says that if you are a Christian, you have the Holy Spirit. If you are not a Christian, you don’t. “Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Rom. 8:9). “To suggest, as our neo-Pentecostal (Again, term-switching.)
friends do, that the Spirit comes into one’s life only in a small trickle when one is first converted and does not come in His totality until some later time contradicts the plain teaching of this verse. (It does not. Again, we concede the presence of the Holy Spirit in every believer. This is what Paul is discussing. The author wants to infer meaning from what Paul is not discussing, which is an argument from silence.
Further, Paul makes it clear that that there is a difference between living according to the sinful nature and living according to the Spirit. He even goes so far as to say that
Peter then tells us it was happening to fulfill Joel's prophecy. And as we have noted, it was for all people. Each generation, each born again believer, will personally experience Pentecost.)
The third reason Pentecost must be regarded as a unique historical event is the fact that after Pentecost (with the exception of Ac. 8:14-17, which will be discussed later) believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit are simultaneous. The account of Peter’s preaching the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34-48 reveals that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed. At the climax of Peter’s sermon, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. That Peter equated their baptism in the Spirit with their salvation is clear from the fact that Peter immediately “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac. 10:48). “The norm is salvation and the Spirit at the same time. The Apostle Peter was present and therefore he could report to the church council (made up of Jews) that the Gentiles were true believers. At the same time, the Gentiles would recognize apostolic authority because Peter had been with them and indeed [was] the one who led them to Christ. And both groups knew they had the same Holy Spirit.” [4] Note that the focus of Acts 10 and 11 is not how to receive the Holy Spirit or how to receive a second blessing, for the Gentiles did not ask for or seek Spirit-baptism. The point of both chapters is to show that “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Ac. 11:18). (The author never explains why Pentecost is the same thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit. It's puzzling indeed that the author insists that the historical Pentecost happened once [which we agree], but then proceeds to list various events when subsequent believers received the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was indeed poured out at Pentecost. But that does not mean the fullness of the Holy Spirit is received, or even retained, at salvation. The Holy Spirit is not a historical event, He's a indwelling presence.
We believe Scripture is clear in that each Christian can appropriate an increasing measure of the Holy Spirit, and that Scripture clearly commands us to seek more of Him.
Let's start with the testimony of Jesus. Lk. 11:13:
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!Therefore, we are to ask the Father for more of the good gift of the Holy Spirit. Now Ac. 4:31:
After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.Did they not have the Holy Spirit before? This sounds to me like a subsequent filling! Ac. 6:3:
Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.It is interesting that the Twelve had a requirement that the specific brothers to be chosen should be full of the Holy Spirit, which implies that others among them might not be. Ac. 13:9:
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said...So there were times when even Paul was not filled with the Holy Spirit, since the verse tells us he was in a different state, that is, filled with the Holy Spirit. Ac. 13:52:
And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.Same thing with the disciples. There apparently were times when the Holy Spirit filled them more than other times. Ep. 1:17:
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.Did these believers for whom Paul was praying not have the Holy Spirit? Of course they did! Paul wants them to have more! Ep. 4:30:
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.So there are things we do that grieve the Holy Spirit, which suggests that His influence and power in us can be diminished. Ep. 5:18:
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.Here's a plain statement from Paul. How can this be interpreted any other way than a command to have more of the Holy Spirit? 1Th. 5:19:
Do not put out the Spirit’s fire...Yes, the Holy Spirit can be quenched in our lives. He is likened to a fire, the embers of which can be fanned into flame in our lives. And finally, this sobering passage from He. 6:4-6:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance...What this passage means has been debated by better men than us. But can we imagine that having shared in the Holy Spirit that it is possible for us to fall away?
This collection of passages should be sufficient to refute the author's contention that the Holy Spirit is given once and there is nothing more to be had.)
A passage which has been often used as a proof text for receiving Spirit-baptism subsequent to believing is Acts 19:1-7. The use of this passage by Pentecostals (Again, term-switching.) is based on a faulty translation in the King James Version: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” (v. 2). The passage literally says in the Greek, “The Holy Spirit did you receive, having believed?” The New King James accurately translates the passage: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” This passage is actually an excellent proof text against the Charismatic doctrine of receiving the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after salvation. Why? Because Paul’s question assumes that in the normal course of events, salvation and Spirit-baptism occur at the same time. The fact that the disciples of John the Baptist had not even heard of the Holy Spirit indicated that they had not received Christian baptism and were still Old Covenant believers and not yet Christians. The problem for these followers of John the Baptist was not that they needed a second work of grace but that they needed to believe in Jesus Christ. After believing and being baptized they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Why was it necessary for the Apostle Paul to lay hands on these men? The laying on of hands in Acts 19:6 (like that in Ac. 8:17) is related to the unique authority of the apostles. Otherwise there would have been no need for the Samaritans to wait for the apostles (Ac. 8). “It seems he did it to show them as Jews that it was no longer John the Baptist’s teaching they were to follow but the teaching of the Apostles.” [5]
What about Acts 8:14-17? Does not this passage record that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit after believing in Christ? Yes, it does. (Oops. The author concedes the argument.)
But this passage still does not support the Charismatic doctrine of subsequence as a normal state of affairs. This passage is an excellent proof text against the Charismatic movement. For if what Charismatics teach is true, the evangelist Philip would have encouraged these new believers to pray and seek the second blessing. (Argument from silence.)
Philip, who was a great miracle worker (unlike modern Charismatics), did not teach anyone to seek, or plead, or empty himself in order to receive Spirit-baptism. (Argument from silence.)
The fact that God did not baptize the Samaritans with the Holy Spirit until the laying on of the hands of the apostles is clearly due to the unique historical situation at that time. (Speculation with no scriptural documentation supplied.)
Because of the racial hatred between the Samaritans and Jews, it was necessary for both the Jewish apostles and the Samaritans that the laying on of hands take place. The apostles approved the Samaritans as accepted by God in Christ and full partners in the kingdom. The Samaritans recognized that the Jewish apostles were the authoritative leaders in the church. If this passage were normative for the modern church, then we should teach that all believers must wait for the laying on of hands by an apostle before receiving Spirit-baptism. (Scripture does not teach this. 1Ti. 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. It was elders, not the apostles, who did this.)
Thus, the only passage which could be used to support a doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of grace after salvation proves too much. If Charismatics were consistent, they would not seek Holy Spirit-baptism but simply wait for an apostle to stop by. The last genuine apostle died almost 1900 years ago. (The author uses as evidence what is yet to be proved.)
Not only does the book of Acts not support the Charismatic doctrine of subsequence, the epistles explicitly deny such a doctrine. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul says that all Christians have been baptized in the Spirit. “You don’t need to seek a Spirit-baptism as a post-conversion experience, Paul is saying to the Corinthians and to us; if you are in Christ, you have already been Spirit-baptized!” [6] (Which actually does not address the issue at hand. We concede that the Holy Spirit is in every Christian. The passage says nothing at all about having more of the Holy Spirit.)
Some Charismatic writers have attempted to circumvent the clear teaching of this passage by an appeal to the Word “by” in the KJV. They argue that “by one Spirit” is different than “in one Spirit.” The only problem with this argument is that the Greek word en (translated “by” in v. 13) can also be translated “in” or “with.” Thus the baptism in the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is identical to every occurrence in the book of Acts. [7] Other Charismatic writers claim that the first part of the passage refers to conversion and the second part to Spirit-baptism. This interpretation is rendered impossible by Paul’s use of the word “all.” Paul says that all members belong to one body. If Paul was referring to two separate groups, he could not have used the word “all.” “Verse 13, then, plainly teaches (1) that all believers share in the gift of the Spirit and (2) that they do so from the time of their incorporation into the body of Christ. This verse is the hard rock which shatters all constructions of the Holy Spirit baptism as an additional, post-conversion, second-blessing experience” [8]
The teaching that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit at conversion is supported by other passages. (Again repeating what no one disputes.)
Paul spends much of Romans chapter 8 discussing the Holy Spirit. Does Paul ever hint at the idea that receiving the Holy Spirit is a two-stage process? No. Paul clearly says that if you are a Christian, you have the Holy Spirit. If you are not a Christian, you don’t. “Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Rom. 8:9). “To suggest, as our neo-Pentecostal (Again, term-switching.)
friends do, that the Spirit comes into one’s life only in a small trickle when one is first converted and does not come in His totality until some later time contradicts the plain teaching of this verse. (It does not. Again, we concede the presence of the Holy Spirit in every believer. This is what Paul is discussing. The author wants to infer meaning from what Paul is not discussing, which is an argument from silence.
Further, Paul makes it clear that that there is a difference between living according to the sinful nature and living according to the Spirit. He even goes so far as to say that
Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. [Ro. 8:8-9].
These hard words are interesting, because Paul is writing to Christians to encourage them to not live according to that old man. Ro. 8:12:
Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation — but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.We must conclude that it is possible to be a carnal Christian even though all Christians have the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit's operation in the lives of Christians can and does vary by degree.)
If you’re a Christian, Paul says to us all, the Spirit is dwelling in you. What more can He do than dwell? Can He double-dwell or triple-dwell?” [9] Paul says, “Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you” (1 Cor. 6:19). He also says, “You are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will dwell in them...’” (1 Cor. 6:16). We must base our doctrine of Spirit-baptism on the plain teaching of the epistles. Doctrine must be based on the clear, didactic passages rather than on a unique historical event. (?? Hasn't the author spent most of this article on the singular historical Pentecost event?)
While the Bible teaches that everyone who becomes a Christian is baptized in the Holy Spirit, it also teaches that Christians need to be continually filled with the Spirit. (Whaaaaaat? The author just conceded the whole thing! Having gone to great pains to refute charismatics, he now joins with them, even embracing the process of logic we just laid out above.
We no longer believe the author is thinking clearly about this.)
We must not confuse these two concepts. Spirit-baptism refers to what occurs when we become part of the body of Christ (the Holy Spirit dwells within us). The filling or fullness of the Spirit refers to the Spirit’s ongoing activity within the believer after conversion. (Ah, so it must be a matter of semantics! The charismatic "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is synonymous with being filled with the Spirit!!!!)
Believers are dependant (sic) on the Holy Spirit’s transforming power for growth in godliness and sanctification. The only passage in the New Testament where Christians are commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit is Ephesians 5:18: “Be filled with the Spirit.” The verb “be filled,” in the original language, is a command (imperative) in the present tense. This means that Christians are commanded to continually, day by day, be filled with the Spirit. How are we to be filled with the Holy Spirit? Is it some mystical experience only for “super-spiritual” believers? The Bible teaches that we are filled with the Holy Spirit by believing in and obeying the Word of God.
You should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind.... But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:17, 20-24). (Notice in this verse the pro-active nature of the command to believers to "put on" the new man, that is, the new nature. It doesn't happen at conversion, it is a continual process.)It is not an accident that the parallel passage to Ephesians 5:18, which says, “Be filled with the Spirit,” is Colossians 3:16, which says, “Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly.”
In view of the parallelism involved we are bound to conclude that filling of the Spirit and the richly indwelling Word of Christ are functionally equivalent. That indwelling Word is not some specialized or restricted truth granted only to some in the congregation but “everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20), faithfully believed and obeyed.... The reality of the Spirit’s filling work is the reality, in all its breadth and richness, of the ongoing working of Christ, the life-giving Spirit, with His Word. To look for some word other than His Word, now inscripturated for the church, is to be seeking some Spirit other than the Holy Spirit. [10] (Now this is curious. On what basis do we accept the idea that these are parallel passages? The Word of Christ is most certainly different than the Holy Spirit. Even a casual readers notices this.)Jesus stressed the importance of the Scriptures: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17).
Charismatics teach that believing in Jesus Christ is not enough for the fulfilled Christian life. (The author has just conceded that Paul teaches this same thing, that it is necessary to be filled with the Spirit in addition!)
They believe that a second work of grace (the baptism in the Holy Spirit) is necessary for spiritual fullness. This teaching is a subtle denial of the sufficiency that we have in Christ; it detracts from the glory due to Jesus Christ and clearly contradicts Paul’s teaching regarding the fullness we have in Christ. “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him...” (Col. 3:9-10). “The work of the Spirit is not some addendum to the work of Christ.... The Spirit’s work is not a ‘bonus’ added to the basic salvation secured by Christ. Rather, the coming of the Spirit brings to light not only that Christ has lived and has done certain things but that he, as the source of eschatological life, now lives and is at work in the church. By and in the Spirit Christ reveals himself as present.” [11] Paul’s teaching is supported by Peter’s: “[Christ’s] divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us...” (2 Pet. 1:3). Both apostles assume that we receive everything we need when we believe in Christ. (And we received divine power. What could this be except for the Holy Spirit? And we have already seen that we need more of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we have everything we need for life and godliness, but that doesn't mean such things are operational in us. We have to act in obedience in order to walk in spiritual power.)
If a second work of grace is needed beyond Christ, these passages simply could not be true. Thus you need to decide whether to follow the teaching of the Word of God or the teaching of Pentecostalism. (Again, term-switching.)
Why is it that Jesus Christ is sufficient? Why is it that, in the epistles, receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit is never separated from believing in Christ? Why is it wrong to think of Spirit-baptism as something added on to the work of Christ? Because Christians are justified in Jesus Christ. The full guilt of sin that every believer incurred is imputed or placed on Jesus Christ on the cross. And Christ’s perfect righteousness is imputed to the believer. The believer is clothed with Christ’s perfect, sinless life. Thus we ask the question: Does God’s verdict of righteousness upon the fallen sinner qualify him to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Yes, absolutely! The person who believes in Jesus Christ receives Christ’s perfect righteousness as a gift from God. In God’s sight he is just as righteous as Jesus Christ. Is Jesus Christ righteous enough to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit? If Christ’s work which renders the Christian perfect, sinless, and absolutely righteous (before God the Father judicially in the heavenly court) is not enough to receive Spirit-baptism, then what else is required? Paul says, “Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13). He asks, “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal. 3:2). (Again, we agree.)
The doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of grace subsequent to salvation does not have biblical support. The unique outpouring of the Holy Spirit from heaven by Christ was an aspect of Christ’s glorification and, like the resurrection and ascension, is never to be repeated. The New Testament epistles teach that believing in Christ, becoming a part of His body, the Church, and receiving Spirit-baptism all occur at the same time. There are several discussions of the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the epistles, yet in each discussion, Spirit-baptism is never mentioned. Nowhere in the epistles are believers told to seek Spirit-baptism. The Bible teaches that receiving Jesus Christ and submitting to His Word are all the Christian needs to be complete. The Charismatic doctrine of the second blessing (i.e. Spirit-baptism) is a deviation from Protestant orthodoxy. It was not taught by the Spirit-filled Protestant Reformers (e.g., Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Knox, etc.). It was not taught by any of the great theologians of sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth centuries (e.g., Gillespie, Rutherford, Owen, Edwards, Turrentin, Hodge, Dabney, Warfield).
(The author will now go on a long and irrelevant tangent.)The doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of grace grew directly from the heretical soil of the second-blessing holiness movement of the nineteenth century. Many holiness teachers in the eighteenth century rejected the orthodox doctrine of sanctification as a lifelong process of spiritual growth, in which sin is never completely eradicated in the believer. Methodistic holiness teachers taught that Christians could receive a “second blessing” which gave the Christian in one moment “entire sanctification.” The sinful nature was completely eliminated in the believer. And, thus, the believer was perfect and sinless. The second blessing doctrine of entire sanctification, of sinless perfection, is condemned by the Apostle John: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves; and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8). The original Pentecostals (Again the term-switching.)
took the second blessing doctrine one step further and taught the “baptism of the Spirit” as a third blessing. Although most Pentecostals eventually rejected the idea of entire sanctification, nevertheless the fathers of modern Pentecostalism were heretical.
In 1901 Charles F. Parham carried the prevalent “Pentecostal” insistence on “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (as described in Acts 2) to the conclusion that tongues should still be the sign of a Pentecostal experience. Parham’s student, W. J. Seymour, popularized this new Pentecostalism beginning in 1906 at the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles, after which this movement grew into its many varieties.... The original Pentecostal teachers, Parham and Seymour, taught a Methodistic Holiness view of a “second blessing” of entire sanctification in which the sinful nature was eradicated. This, they said, was followed by a third blessing, “baptism of the Spirit,” accompanied by tongues. [12]Within twenty years of the founding of modern Pentecostalism by Charles Parham, many people became Pentecostal who had Baptist rather than Methodist holiness backgrounds. These new Pentecostals rejected the second blessing idea of entire sanctification. Thus, the third blessing, “the baptism of the Spirit” [13] became the “second blessing.” Pentecostal theology has retained the second blessing idea to the present. Pentecostalism and the modern Charismatic movement did not grow out of the careful exegesis of God’s Word but rather out of heretical holiness revivalism.
It is ironic that Charismatics, who consider themselves experts on the Holy Spirit, (Smug condescension.)
completely misunderstand the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit came so that we could have a wonderful, subjective experience? (Which charismatics teach this?)
So that we could have wonderful religious sensations? (Which charismatics teach this?)
So that we could feel electric current in our bodies? (Which charismatics teach this?)
So that we could have an exciting, mind-blowing experience? (Which charismatics teach this?)
So that our worship services would make people go, “Wow, how thrilling”? (Which charismatics teach this?)
Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit came so that people would focus on the Holy Spirit? (Which charismatics teach this?)
So that people would hang banners with representations of doves in their churches and have seminars on Spirit-baptism, etc.? (Which charismatics teach this?)
No, not at all. Listen carefully to what Jesus Christ says about the Spirit’s ministry: “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come...He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you” (Jn. 16:13-14). The Holy Spirit came to point men to Christ and to glorify Christ. After Peter was baptized in the Spirit, did he stand up and tell the crowd about his wonderful experience? Did he say, “Men and brethren, I have just received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and I want to tell you how wonderful it is. When it came upon me, it was like being thrilled with a vital electric current. I felt such a beautiful love and peace course through my whole body, right down to the balls of my feet”? On the contrary, Peter made no reference to himself or his feeling. His message was Jesus Christ and Him crucified: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God...” (Ac. 2:22). [14]
Notes
[1] Scripture references are from the New King James Version, unless otherwise noted.
[2] Anthony A. Hoekema, Tongues and Spirit Baptism: A Biblical and Theological Evaluation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), p. 19.
[3] “The fundamental significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring, without reference to its progress.... It presents the action or event as a ‘point,’ and hence is called ‘punctilliar’” (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Macmillan, 1969 [1927]), p. 193.
[4] John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 99.
[5] MacArthur, p. 101.
[6] Hoekema, p. 21.
[7] Every occurrence uses the same Greek word, en.
[8] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), p. 31.
[9] Hoekema, p. 26 (cf. Ephesians 1:13).
[10] Gaffin, p. 33-34. Cf. “...Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26).
[11] Gaffin, pp. 19-20.
[12] George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford, 1980), p. 93.
[13] The phrase “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” commonly used by Charismatics, is unbiblical. The Bible always uses the phrase baptism in or with (Greek: en) the Holy Spirit. This is because the Holy Spirit is not the one baptizing. It is Christ who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. He receives this privilege as the divine-human mediator, as part of His glorification by the Father.
[14] Robert D. Brinsmead, “Justification by Faith and the Charismatic Movement,” Present Truth (special issue, 1972), p. 7.
Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing, Michigan, 1996
No comments:
Post a Comment