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.
No comments:
Post a Comment