Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

It was asked of me this past week, whether I believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is a complicated topic. First, I will describe what is usually meant by the concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit. Second, I will describe what I would refer to as a more orthodox theology concerning this issue.  Finally, I will demonstrate through textual references, which of these two positions is more biblically authentic.

The concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit is usually put forward by Pentecostal groups concerning the idea of a higher level of Christian. In this theology, what we find is that the individual is baptized into Christ through water, and then requires a second baptism by the Holy Spirit, or by fire, into the higher, more complete realm of being a Christian. The basic theology this mode of thinking requires is a separation of justification from sanctification. What this entails is that justification occurs at the time of water baptism, while sanctification occurs sometime later based upon an experience of the individual involving the Holy Spirit. This also leaves several areas of concern regarding the relationship between true believers and the idea of the so-called “carnal Christians."  Carnal Christians are justified by baptism, but continue to lead lives of a lower level of piety, never making Jesus “Lord of their life” and continuing to live as if there was no baptism.  In fact, they could become atheists and still claim their baptism for salvation.  But the higher level Christian, the "mature Christian," has a baptism of the Holy Spirit, an experience in which that person feels the touch of the Holy Spirit transform their lives.  The usual manifestation that is considered proof of this baptism by the Holy Spirit is the skill of glossolalia or speaking in tongues. Other gifts of the Holy Spirit are also considered within the realm of proof of this baptism by the Holy Spirit. Typical of this group are prophecy, dreams, visions, healing, and other such activities.  The rewards of this higher level are usually discussed in terms of “jewels in my crown,” referring loosely to Zechariah 9:16, 2 Timothy 4:8, Revelation 2:10, and 1 Peter 5:4.  There is no true exegesis that occurs in this theology, but rather an eisegesis based upon a whole house of cards created by bad hermeneutics.  What this means is that when we give away logic to the devil, we have no framework in which to interpret the Word.  Said another way, if two passages seem to say the opposite, then your understanding of one or both is wrong.

The orthodox Reformed look at this theology is decidedly different. First of all, sanctification is not considered a separate event from justification. Rather, sanctification and justification occur simultaneously at water baptism. Because justification and sanctification occur simultaneously, there is the possibility, nay, the necessity, of a person being justified, sanctified and in the process of becoming sanctified, all three simultaneously, based upon the single event of water baptism.  Therefore, there is no category for separate events of justification and sanctification. The categories of carnal Christian and higher level Christian are nonexistent.  There is only one category of believer.  There are two types of people in church, but the categories are decidedly different.  In a future post, if reminded by the recipient of this missive, I will breakdown these reformed categories based upon Covenant Theology.

Coming back to our discussion of the Holy Spirit, once again, a full systematic theology is helpful in discerning the differences between these two views of the works of the Holy Spirit. Starting with the impact of original sin, and using the classic debate between Augustine and Pelagius as a template for the discussion, we can lay out three basic positions on the impact of Adam's sin on humanity. In the full Pelagian position, the sin of Adam is not imputed to all of mankind. Adam merely introduces the possibility of sin into the world.  Free will remains untouched.  Adam is a bad example. In the semi-Pelagian position, Adam tarnishes humanity with sin; and the ability to choose well, free will, was tarnished, but is redeemable by Christ. The Augustinian position is decidedly different. Augustine viewed original sin as introducing a condition of sin to mankind whereby all aspects of mankind were affected by sin. This includes free will. Therefore, mankind became incapable of following the law. Mankind became incapable of seeking God.  A full Pelagian has no need of Jesus.  A semi-Pelagian is grateful to Jesus for making salvation possible, but still has to work out his own salvation.  The Augustinian is in a real jam.  He is in a desperate plight and has no way out on his own.  The Augustinian is in desperate need of divine intervention. 

The role of the atonement is likewise viewed through different lenses. The full Pelagian view of the atonement is that Christ was the perfect example, where as Adam was the sinful example. There was no real need for Christ to die, because it was his good example that matters to us.  He teaches us ultimate virtue and morality.  The semi-Pelagian view of the atonement is that Christ wipes our slates clean including our free wills making us now capable of filling the law. Again, Christ makes salvation possible.  The Augustinian view of the atonement is that Christ imputes righteousness to believers, justifying them on judgment day, but it does not affect our free will or our condition of sin. We remain in Adam while we are in this world.  But the righteousness of Christ has been accounted to us and our sin has been accounted to Christ in the great exchange.

Extending each of these logically to the area of sanctification, we can now make the following conclusions. A full Pelagian worldview actually has very little need for Christ. In this system, Adam is merely a bad example, while Christ is a good example. Since a believer in this system really didn't get much from Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, there is plenty of room for "something else." It is into this feeling of emptiness, that the Pentecostal places this idea of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Because nothing much was attained by the sacrifice of God’s son, more is required to attain our full eternal reward. The semi-Pelagian view of sanctification is one in which we are constantly working towards perfection. Because our slate was cleaned by Christ, we are now on a cosmic balance scale of sorts hoping to tip our scale towards the side of righteousness. The Holy Spirit's job in the system is to lend assistance in our endeavors toward righteousness. The Augustinian view of sanctification is different. We are at once justified and simultaneously sanctified at the time of baptism. We are in a lifelong process of being sanctified simultaneous with our declaration of justification and sanctification. Our efforts are genuinely in the direction of righteousness because we are covenant members with Christ and through Christ. But these works have no bearing on our righteousness, because our righteousness was declared to us as being imputed from Christ to us at time of baptism. Similarly, our sin is imputed to Christ; so that time of judgment, we may approach the throne of God with confidence clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Christ has already bore the sin of the believers, having once and for all time been the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

So, which argument has the best support from Scripture? Let's start by looking at the Prophets.  In Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, mankind is clearly declared incapable of following the law. Several of the Psalms echo this problem. Paul's summary of this Old Testament view of the sin of mankind can be found in Romans 3: 1-20.  No one does good; no, not even one. No one seeks God. Their mouths are an open grave. Several places discuss this as well within the parables and teachings of Jesus. Matthew 5: 48 gives us the words be you therefore perfect.  So, logically, if Jesus is telling us to be perfect, and Paul points out that we can't be perfect, we have a problem. Therefore, the bigger view of Jesus, that is, the Augustinian view, becomes necessary to solve this problem.

So, if the Holy Spirit isn't here to give us a second baptism of sorts, why did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? Lucky for us, Jesus answers this question for us.  John 14 to 16 gives us a detailed description of the work of the Holy Spirit. The job of the Holy Spirit is to testify about Jesus, his work, his purpose, his identity, and his saving grace. It is the Holy Spirit that gives us the gift of grace, the gift of faith, the gift of knowledge in the redeeming work of Christ through his death, resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit is actually quite busy without doing parlor tricks on our command.  The reason the Pentecostal believes that there has to be more, is that the Pentecostal does not understand original sin, the Holiness of God, and just how absolutely desperate his plight actually is.  Without a full understanding of sin and the condition of sin, we cannot appreciate how truly amazing Grace really is.  The bigger the problem, the bigger the solution has to be.  Augustinians have no need for something more.  The work of Christ and his Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, has to be absolutely huge beyond imagination to accomplish redemption for the believers.

The usual places to which the Pentecostal references the Holy Spirit are Acts 2 and 4, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. A basic tenet of hermeneutics is that the Bible should interpret the Bible. Interpretation of these passages without account for the John passages is bad hermeneutics. But more than that, interpretation of Acts 2 without regard to the actual sermon by Peter in that same chapter is bad hermeneutics. A reasoned approach to all of these passages is to keep things in Biblical and redemptive historical context. Look and see what the context of speaking in tongues is in Acts 2.  The apostles are not babbling senseless noise. They are speaking in the native languages of all of the different peoples who are there to hear them. 3000 people were converted that day, not because of some emotional experience, but because of the convincing words of the apostles in their testimony about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I can say that is because of the work of the Holy Spirit that I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I can say that because of the work of the Holy Spirit at my baptism, I am a new covenant member in Christ. Therefore, I can say that because of the work of the Holy Spirit, I have knowledge of the gospel, of Christ's redeeming work on the cross, and of the justification and sanctification that his death, resurrection and ascension earned on my behalf and was imputed to me at baptism, but that I will not actually receive until death or the last day, whichever comes first. Truly, the Holy Spirit has been very busy in my life.

Hebrews 7—Melchizedek, Part 2

In Judah God is known; his name is great in Israel.  His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion.  There he broke the flashing arrows, the shield, the sword, and the weapons of war. Selah  (Psalm 76:1-3 ESV)

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter.  Rule in the midst of your enemies!  Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.  The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”  (Psalm 110:1-4 ESV)

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.  (Hebrews 7:1-3 ESV)

Types and shadows are the tool of covenant theology that the writer of Hebrews keeps hammering.  Rather than dwell for long in the Psalter, I just want to point out that the order of Melchizedek runs through the whole Old Testament.  It is the High Priesthood of that better Covenant that is made first with Abraham, and then finally by Christ, through Christ, for his elect, who are both natural and grafted in members of the Covenant family of Abraham. 

I want to start by enumerating a few interesting tidbits.  First, Melchizedek blesses Abraham; and by giving him a tithe, Abraham recognizes Melchizedek as the Great High Priest who intercedes for him with God.  Second, one chapter later, Abraham has no need of an intercessor, because God talks directly to him.  In a moment, we will examine why that is the case.  Third, Melchizedek is called the king of peace.  Fourth, Melchizedek is dropped into the story without antecedent or genealogy, and then seemingly disappears again.  The writer of Hebrews implies that he continues a priest forever.

See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.  (Hebrews 7:4-10 ESV)

This is a key point the writer of Hebrews is making.  Melchizedek is not of the same lineage as Levi.  It is very tempting to assume that Melchizedek is some sort of preincarnate, dropping into the story to set Abraham on the correct path.  But Salem was a real place, and it had a real king.  No true incarnate diety would take authority of a kingdom of man.  But as a type and shadow, this works very well.  Melchizedek blesses Abraham.  In the next chapter, Genesis 15:6, we are told that the basis of Abraham’s righteousness is his belief in the promise of God.  What purpose then is this passage of Genesis 14 in the overall narrative?  The writer of Hebrews tells us that by translation, Melchizedek is the king of righteousness.  We’ll have to take his word for that, of course.  So, in one man, we have king of righteousness, by name, and king of peace, by location in Salem.  First, Abraham receives blessing from this Great High Priest, Melchizedek, the king of righteousness and the king of peace, and then Abraham offers Melchizedek a tithe, recognizing him as greater than himself, and then God declares Abraham righteous based upon his faith in the promise and blesses Abraham.  Later in Genesis 22, Abraham will obediently offer his son as a sacrifice to God, but God refuses the sacrifice.  Remember, it will be Abraham’s Seed, Who in His incarnation is also a natural branch of Abraham, Who is indeed sacrificed to God. 

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.  (Hebrews 7:11-14 ESV)

While this whole line of argument seems obscure to us today, let’s break this down and try to view this from a redemptive historical picture.  We must start with the audience again.  The audience of Hebrews are predominantly Jewish Christians.  As such, they have spent their whole lives in the religious context of Moses and Aaron and Levi as priests.  Melchizedek not being of the family of Levi or Aaron is exactly the point.  Aaron and Levi are associated with the Law as given through Moses.  Melchizedek is not.  Jesus is not from that branch of the family. 

But there is a larger point and that is in the first phrase: Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek?  Indeed.  This is such an important question and we are so bogged down on who this Melchizedek guy is, we totally blow over this basic and fundamental question.  The writer of Hebrews just told us that we are ready to move onto advanced Christianity, so we should not need to dwell on the basics.  I agree with Paul on this point.  We never outgrow the basics, because fallen man, left to himself will always turn back to himself for answers.  So, the writer of Hebrews makes an assumption that we are meant to make as well.  Perfection is NOT attainable through the Law; otherwise, this argument doesn’t make any sense.  This is a huge point and cannot be overstated.  The answer to the writer’s question is obviously that there would be no need for Jesus as incarnate deity if perfection were possible under the Law.  This is the whole point of the Gospel.  This is what Jesus keeps pounding into the Pharisees.  This is what Paul finally understands.  This is the central point of the distinction between Law and Gospel.  The whole message of Hebrews hinges on this very point.  If we were capable of perfection through the Levitical priesthood, what further need would we have for Jesus?

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,

            “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.  (Hebrews 7:15-19 ESV)

This section, again, gives some to think of Melchizedek as some preincarnate.  Clearly, this passage refers to Jesus.  As such, it is obvious that He arises by the power of an indestructible life.  But does that phrase also refer to Melchizedek?  No.  The line of argument is about genealogy.  Just as Melchizedek was not of the same lineage as Abraham, neither is Jesus of the same lineage as Aaron or Levi.  The indestructible life of Jesus does allow Him to continue as priest forever.  But this is not the big point of this section either.

Focus on verses 18-19.  A former commandment is set aside.  What is set aside here?  The Levitical priesthood interceded based upon the Law and the Covenant of Moses; therefore, the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force.  It was not capable of making anything perfect.  The Law is only capable of teaching us about our sin.  That was the whole purpose of the Law.  Now, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.  Remember again the audience.  Only the Great High Priest dared to draw near to God under the Levitical system.  Now, with this new hope, this new covenant, this new Great High Priest of the order of Melchizedek, we can all draw near to God.  This is truly amazing stuff, and it puts a dagger into the notion of Temple worship and the Mosaic Covenant. 

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

            “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’”

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.  (Hebrews 7:20-22 ESV)

We have already seen that this quote is from Psalm 110.  What is this oath to which the Psalmist refers?  For just a moment, let us remember all of those Old Testament covenants that we discussed recently.  Three were Law Covenants: creation, Noah and Moses.  We know that Abraham is different.  The missing covenant is that with David.  Remember that David wrote many (roughly half) of the Psalter.  This one in particular is a Davidic Psalm, and it refers to the Davidic Covenant.  Let’s go, once again, to 2 Samuel 7:8-17 and read about the Davidic Covenant.  Two key points are at once obvious.  First, there are no blessings and curses.  This is a straight royal grant.  This covenant is of the same type as that with Abraham.  Second, we come to 2 Samuel 7:12.  When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.  The assumption is that God is talking about Solomon.  It makes sense within a Jewish Old Testament manner of thinking.  Notice the number of the noun offspring.  We know from later in the sentence that this is one person.  The writer of Hebrews is directly applying this verse to mean Jesus.  It is the Kingdom of Heaven that will be established.  It is Jesus who will be the Son of God.  It is the throne of Jesus that will be established forever.  This promise was about Jesus.

So, logically, if the writer of Hebrews is pointing to both the Covenant with Abraham as well as the Covenant with David in distinction to the three law covenants, Jesus is certainly the guarantor of a better covenant.  Everything that Jesus mediates is a gift from God, not tied to a blessings and curses situation.  Those three covenants have to be reconciled, but that is why we needed Jesus to come.  He had to fulfill those covenants for us. 

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.  (Hebrews 7:23-25 ESV)

This section is plainly straightforward to us today, in our Trinitarian view of Christ.  If we have some odd Arian type of theology, then this is more problematic.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are the archetype of this theology in our century.  But we need to be careful with so many of the liberal views that chip away at the Gospel and deity of Christ.  To these wolves, we must shout the charge of blasphemy. 

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.  (Hebrews 7:26-28 ESV)

We finish up chapter 7 with a brief discussion of the sacrifice of Jesus.  I say brief because the writer of Hebrews was brief.  I will not be nearly so succinct.  From the first line, why is it fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens?  The writer tells us.  There are two reasons and we are elaborating on the first.  He has no need to offer sacrifices for his own sins.  He doesn’t have any sin.  His sacrifice pays for our sin.  Because he was made perfect, he only had to do it once.  Goats and lambs and bulls and pigeons cannot cleanse us of our sins.  They can only cover up our sins.  This is the mercy seat language of the Old Testament.  His sacrifice is so much better.  It does more than just cover up.  It reconciles us through Christ, to God the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  How is he made perfect?  This works on two levels.  He is God, so when He became incarnate, He was made perfect from the start.  But also, He is made perfect in a progressive sense by living a perfect, sinless life while incarnate under the curse of Adam.  This life creates the conditions of a perfect sacrifice.  He is wholly human and wholly God and completely sinless as such.  Perfection incarnate.  He does what no man under the Law is capable of doing.  He becomes that perfect sacrifice for us.

My friends, I am going to say this differently that what we heard last week.  It’s in the text so watch closely.  He did this once for all.  That statement cannot be more plain and yet it cannot be more overlooked and abused.  Those other priests must atone for their own sins daily (plus every year on the Day of Atonement,) because they are not perfect and the sacrifice that they offer is insufficient to the job.  Therefore, in response to this paragraph from the notes, my answers would be different.

What has the blood of Christ done for you? Where do you need His blood in your life? Often we most need the blood of Christ at those times we're victorious. Victorious times can actually be dangerous times, although **** spoke for all of us in saying he could use the challenge of victorious times right now.

The blood of Christ, for me, purchased redemption, cleansing my sin, reconciling me to God, allowing me to approach His throne boldly and with confidence on the Last Day, knowing that I am not to be judged by my own merits, but rather by the perfect righteousness of Christ that was imputed to me as a gift of Grace through the power of the Holy Spirit.  In my life, His blood has already freed me from the yoke of sin, so that my works are sanctified by that same Grace from the Holy Spirit.  Because I have the knowledge of the Gospel and what the Blood of Christ has already done for me, once and for all, I can live accordingly in gratitude and obedience to His will.  I am not ever going to be victorious in this life, in the way in which that question was asked.  My victorious time will come on the Last Day, at Judgment, when I will hear the words, “Well done, my good and faithful servant,” as if I had done something to earn them.  My victory in this life is the certain knowledge of that victory that was paid for me by Christ’s blood for that victory on my behalf on the Last Day.  And that, my friends, is plenty enough for me.

--Troll--

“Why Can’t I Own Canadians?”

“Why Can’t I Own Canadians?” Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth - White Horse Inn Blog

The title alone should make this worth the read! Direct response is becoming the word of the day. Enjoy this brief word on rightly discerning the Old Testament.

--Ogre--