For some years, one strand in my life has been studying for a theology degree with LST. Ive looked at all sorts of interesting things and people tell me that it has improved my teaching and leading no end!
Ive just completed a module on The People of God and as part of it wrote an essay on what scholars nowadays make of the classical Pentecostal doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, i.e. the teaching that it is a distinct experience that comes after being born again.
I thought this particular essay might be of interest to others, so Ive stripped out the references and some of the more technical phrases and here it is:
?
----------------------------------
AN EVALUATION OF THE CLASSICAL DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT IN THE LIGHT OF SCHOLARLY STUDIES
1. Introduction
Classical Pentecostalism is defined as those churches and movements that grew out of the spiritual experiences of the Azusa Street revival, which together teach that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is really different from conversion, occurs subsequently, is accompanied by visible manifestations and empowers the believer for effective witness. Some Pentecostals also teach the necessity of speaking in tongues as evidence that the Spirit baptism has occurred, but this was strongly disputed within Pentecostalism as early as 1906, and I will therefore not be treating it as part of classical Pentecostal teaching. This doctrine that baptism in the Spirit occurs after conversion need not imply that the Spirit was not received at conversion, but it does assert that following conversion there is a need for a prophetic/missionary ignition from the Spirit.
As evidence for this teaching, it is observed that Jewish writers generally saw the Spirit as the source of prophetic utterance amongst Gods people. It is also argued that Luke consistently separates baptism in the Holy Spirit from conversion and understands it to occur amongst people who already believe. Jesus himself was conceived by the Spirit, but still received the Spirit before beginning his ministry (Luke 3:21-23). The disciples were already born againbefore Pentecost (Luke 10:20; John 13:10, 15:3, 20:22-23), and the promise they then received was power to speak (Acts 1:8) which is highlighted by the extra words 'and they will prophesy', added in when Peter quoted from Joel 2:29 (Acts 2:18). In Acts 8:4-25, we meet Samaritans who had believed but not received the Spirit. Paul was converted on the Damascus Road, calling out 'Lord!', but only received the Spirit three days later (Acts 9:17). Cornelius was a devout man (Acts 10:2) before he received the Spirit (10:44), many Corinthians were converted without mention of the Spirit (Acts 18:8-9) and there were believers in Ephesus who did not receive the Spirit at their conversion (Acts 19:1-6). Therefore, Pentecostals hold that Luke-Acts does not describe the Spirit having a function in conversion, but rather the function of empowering Christians.
On looking elsewhere in the New Testament, many accept that Paul offers little support for this teaching and argue instead that Luke-Acts has a distinctive pneumatology (i.e. a distinctive teaching about the Spirit) that should not be collapsed into that of other New Testament writers. Therefore, whilst Pentecostal teaching about baptism in the Spirit is not taught throughout the whole New Testament, it is held to have its roots in the Old Testament and to be the clear teaching of Luke-Acts that complements the rest of New Testament pneumatology.
However, all of the above evidences have been criticised by scholars, as follows:
2. Old Testament Background
Old Testament teaching about the Spirit is actually broader than classical Pentecostalism suggests. The Spirit is given not only to prophets, but also for artistry (Ex 31:3), wisdom (Deut 34:9) leadership (Judg 3:10), strength (Judg 14:6), instruction (Neh 9:20), personal transformation (Ps 51:11) and life itself (Gen 2:7, Job 33:4).
The Spirit was expected to characterise the Messianic Age in general (Is 32:15, Joel 2:28-32). In the inter-testamental period, the Spirit could be seen to grant wisdom (Sirach 39:6) and miraculous power (4Q521). It was thus transformative and potentially could bring about spiritual new birth. Also, the focus of Jewish spiritual hope was not only for an increase in prophecy, but for a whole new Messianic kingdom under a new covenant.
3. Archetypal or Unique Events?
Many scholars question whether Jesus baptism (Luke 3:21-23) and the churchs Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13) really function as archetypes for Christian experience.
It is argued that Jesus baptism was a unique event, in that it inaugurated both him as Messiah and the Messianic Age, and is therefore unrepeatable. In response, it has been pointed out that the nativity narrative in Luke already contains signs of the new Messianic age, identifies Jesus as Spirit-born and describes a fresh wave of prophetic utterance, such that the commencement of the Messianic Age is not actually linked to Jesus baptism in particular.
However, Pentecost has also been seen by some scholars as a unique historical moment, coming as it does after Jesus ascension and at the start of a new book. It is also argued that the Jews commemorated the Sinai covenant each Pentecost, and that promise in Acts 2:33 refers to the New Covenant (cf. Acts 13:32-39). However, it is unclear that the Jews associated Pentecost and Sinai as early as the middle of the first century, and the promise in Acts 2:18 most obviously refers to the quote from Joel 2:28-32 about the Spirit being poured out.
More recently, James Dunn has argued that, even if these events are not seen as unique historical moments, they still do not provide precedents for those who came to believe after Pentecost, who inevitably have a different experience of gaining salvation compared to the first disciples. Gordon Fee agrees that there is not a direct correspondence between Luke 3 and our experiences today.
However, Dunn himself is unable to sustain this embargo on finding direct contemporary significance in Jesus own Spirit-anointing. More importantly, the early church did draw a direct line between the first Pentecost experience and the experiences of later converts (Acts 11:16-17, 15:8-9), just as Pentecostals do today.
4. Re-reading Acts
Dunn agrees with Pentecostals that Luke does not present water baptism and Spirit baptism as a single event. However, he then argues that no one in the New Testament is a Christian before their baptism in the Spirit. Pauls 3-day blindness and his own testimony (Acts 22:16) indicate that he was not actually born again until he met Ananias. Cornelius was a god-fearer, not a Christ-follower, and received a baptism in the Spirit as Paul spoke about forgiveness through Christ (Acts 10:43-44). The Gentiles Spirit baptism was understood as a sign of their salvation, not their missionary vocation (Acts 15:8-9). The Ephesians believers were only disciples, not amongst the community of the disciples. Dunn therefore proposes that the following are all aspects of a single process of conversion-initiation:belief, repentance, water baptism, laying-on-of-hands and (as the climax) a manifest reception of the Spirit.
Pentecostals have replied that Dunns exegetical approach ignores the significance of Luke 4:14-21 and Acts 1:8 for interpreting these events. Moreover, Dunns thesis that baptism in the Spirit is the climax of conversion-initiation implies that someone might believe and be baptised in water and yet still not be a Christian, but he nowhere explores this significant inference.
In fact, Luke does not explain quite how conversion and Spirit baptism relate. The Samaritan narrative indicates that the latter may occur significantly later than repentance and water baptism, but it is the only example of such a delay. The classical Pentecostal expectation of a delay between conversion and baptism in the Holy Spirit is therefore tenable, but it can hardly be seen as normative.
5. Johns Pneumatology
Whereas Pentecostals have referred to John 20:22-23 as evidence that Lukes Pentecost was a not the apostles first experience of the Spirit, Dunn has argued that we must first identify what each evangelist has to say about the Spirit in their own book(s) and only afterwards explore how these interact. However, this approach assumes that the evangelists theological agendas have so overtaken their narratives as to make the events they recount quite unreliable. If instead we accept that Johns gospel is (or even just that it might be) both theological and historical, then John 20 justifiably forms part of the historical background to Lukes account.
Even so, interpretations of John 20 vary greatly. Calvin read this event as a commissioning to preach the gospel. Beasley-Murray reads it as Johns Pentecost (though this is hard to square with John 14:26 and 15:26). Carson finds merely a symbolic promise of Pentecost, whilst Dunn focuses instead on echoes of Gen 2:7 and Ezek 37:1-14 as indicating the creation of a new humanity in Christ.
What are we to make of all these suggestions? A comparison with John 7:38-39 suggests that John did not see Jesus gift of the Spirit in the locked room as the complete fulfilment of Jesus promise of the Spirit, since Jesus glorification was not complete until his ascension. John 20 is therefore best read rather straightforwardly, i.e. as a reception of the Spirit by the apostles before Pentecost.
Nonetheless, since 1 John 2:18-:27 indicates that Spirit-anointing is part-and-parcel of Christian identity, it may be that John understood the apostles multi-stage experience to be unique.
6. Paul's Pneumatology
The scholarly consensus is that Paul understood baptism in the Holy Spirit simply to accompany conversion. His only direct mention of it links it to membership in Christ (1 Cor 12:13). He consistently referred to the Spirit when speaking of conversion to Christ (Rom 5:1-5, 15:16; 2 Cor 11:4; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Thess 2:13; Tit 3:4-7). The Spirit is what distinguishes believers from non-believers (Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 2:6-16, 12:3) and he indwells the redeemed (1 Cor 6:19-20).
The exegesis of some of these verses has been debated. Pentecostals have argued that Eph 1:13-14, 1 Cor 12:13 and Titus 3:5 all indicate two distinct spiritual experiences. However, arrob?n in Eph 1:14 means a first instalment, 1 Cor 12:13 is best interpreted as a Semitic parallelism which assumes that both water baptism and Spirit baptism were experienced at the start of the Christian life, and the relevant clause in Titus 3:5 is governed by only one verb and one preposition, indicating just one event.
Therefore, according to Paul, there is one giving of the Spirit, with both converting and empowering functions. Whilst this has been seen as an embarrassment for Pentecostals, it could be that Paul did not teach about Christians experiencing life in Christ without baptism in the Spirit simply because he had always made it his apostolic practice to ensure that all converts in his churches quickly went on to receive Spirit baptism, as is suggested by Acts 19:1-6. Intriguing though this idea may be, it is a kind of argument from silence (i.e. an idea based on what is not in the Bible rather than what is, which the history of theology has proven to be a very flawed form of argument) and it will therefore not bear much critical scrutiny.
7. Putting Together a New Testament Pneumatology
In the light of Luke, John and Pauls apparently different teachings about the Spirit, it matters considerably how their teachings are put together. Menzies, a Pentecostal, argues that, however unusual the events in Acts 8, they indicate that Luke has his own distinct pneumatology and that a respect for scripture requires us to listen to this distinct voice. Hollenweger goes further and argues that these different voices cannot be harmonised and that we must speak of the Bibles contrasting pneumatologies.
However, Turner argues we have to try to bring Luke-Acts and Pauls teachings together, because the similarity between Acts 19:2 and Gal 3:2 shows that they sprang from the same milieu. Indeed, the Spirit in Luke-Acts is not limited to prophetic/missionary functions but is held to perform miracles (Acts 8:39, 13:9-11) and is involved in internal church affairs (Acts 6:3; 11:28; 15:28; 20:28).
Those scholars who have attempted to bring together what Luke and Paul teach about the Spirit have commonly achieved a harmony but prioritising Paul and making Luke fit in with him. Indeed, Dunn sees fit to contrast Luke negatively with Paul, seeing Luke as 'fairly crude' and an 'undiscriminating guide'.
It is possible to harmonise their teachings in a way that respects the authorsdifferences, but it comes at the price of some speculation and a rather complex conclusion. For example, the Pentecostal scholar, Atkinson, notes that there is no single standard biblical phrasing concerning the Spirit, and that John is widely held to describe two distinct experiences of the Spirit. It may therefore be that Paul describes the first experience in terms of baptism in the Spirit and is silent on the latter, whilst Luke avoids Spirit-language for the first experience and calls the second one, baptism in the Spirit. This may be true, but it again relies on an argument from silence, which is quite unsatisfactory.
8. Critical Observations on the Debate
It is possible to make a few observations about this debate. Firstly, there is a continuing need for the participants in this debate to learn from each other. Whilst the classical Pentecostal position does not stand as a complete New Testament pneumatology (rather making Luke-Acts as a 'canon within the canon',i.e. treating it as more important doctrinally than other parts of the canon of Scripture ), those who harmonise Luke-Acts with the rest of the New Testament tend to mute Lukes distinctive voice. The debate is peppered with attempts to elevate one biblical teaching over another, as when Dunn writes: 'The Baptism in the Spirit is primarily initiatory and only secondarily an empowering.'Instead of preferring either the converting or the empowering function of the Spirit, we need to find ways to articulate how these functions work in synergy. For example, when Acts 1:8 speaks 'being made witnesses' (Acts 1:8) this refers not only to a baptism of power, but also to a new measure of experience of Christ that gives the disciple more about which to witness.
Secondly, Pentecostalism has challenged biblical scholars to realise that manifestly charismatic life was the norm in the early church, which knew nothing of an unobtrusive Spirit-filling. Whilst classical Pentecostal teaching about baptism in the Spirit erred in making timing an issue in itself, its academic critics are rather mute on the issue that this doctrine was aiming to highlight, i.e. that the Christian life without manifest charismatic experience is biblically sub-normal.
Thirdly, debates about Spirit baptism are hindered by the use of terminology that focuses on both conversion and baptism in the Spirit as singular experiences and divorces both experiences from the rest of the Christian life. One does not typically call an oak tree merely a grown acorn, nor seek to explain it with reference to the acorns sowing and germination alone. Yet many still attempt to describe the fullness of Christian spirituality in terms of what was received at conversion-initiation and/or a second experience of the Spirit.
9. Conclusion
Classical Pentecostal teaching about baptism in the Holy Spirit has not been widely accepted by New Testament scholars. Even some Pentecostal scholars now accept that the early Pentecostals read their experience into the Bible and thus distorted its teaching about the Holy Spirit. However, those scholars who claim to be able to explain neatly and exactly what the Spirit does in Christianslives are also distorting New Testament teaching, given that the New Testament contains some contrasting ideas and also teaches that our perception of the Spirits work in salvation is yet only partial (John 3:8).
Having looked at the scholarly debates around this issue, what really stands out to me is that the New Testament portrays a much more dynamic experience of the Spirit than is found in most modern churches! Increasingly, Pentecostals and scholars are agreeing upon this fact and rightly focusing on the continuing need for Christians to experience more powerful manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
?