Chapter 07 - The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit My own complaint against most writers on the Holy Spirit is that they know too much.

Quoted by Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit The Holy Spirit in the New Testament sense is the presence of God which bears witness to, and makes effectual, the historical Christ as a living personal presence. The operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the Word about Christ to become the Word of Christ for us, and for the Word of Christ to become the Word of God.

                 Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation

Only if they were not God could a definition be given at this point, such a definition as would be more than a description of the fact that God Himself is to the fore in His revelation. But what is to the fore in God’s revelation is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. A first-class definition of these three could thus only be given if the Father, the Son and the Spirit are not God.

Barth, Church Dogmatics To write about the person of Christ is one thing but to speak of the Spirit of God is another. Many of the things spoken in regard to the Holy Spirit are only an extension of what the Bible declares about the person of Christ. In fact, the Bible does not give an extensive treatment of the Holy Spirit. Brunner declares that the scope of the New Testament utterances is not such that we can "summarize them in a `Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.’ "¹ In comparing the doctrines of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the history of Christian doctrine, one can say that the church went far beyond the New Testament data in defining the doctrine of Christ. On the other hand, the judgment has been made that the church "fell considerably short of the New Testament in defining the doctrine of the Holy Spirit."² Both facts being true, namely, the limitation of scriptural utterance and absence of creedal definition, there is little to draw on. Perhaps we are in a better position to say what the person and work of the Spirit are not than we are to say what they are.

However, what the Bible records about the person of the Holy Spirit is tremendously important. The data is not such that we can dismiss it lightly. A whole movement within the ranks of Christianity, the so-called "Third Force," has emphasized the role of the Holy Spirit in several unique ways. The "Third Force" refers to segments of churches, sects, and fellowships which can be termed "Pentecostal" in one sense of the word or other. However one judges this movement with reference to its relationship to other Christian groups, its doctrine of the Spirit must be evaluated from the standpoint of the Scriptures and what the Scriptures regard as the Spirit’s proper work. The Biblical Data In discussing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit one has to begin with the foundation material, i.e., the Scriptures. Without this we would only be able to conclude with the remnant disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus that we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.(Acts 19:1-2 ) The significance of this statement is based on the Jewish belief that since the time of the prophets--who had ceased with Malachi-- the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn from Israel.³ Now the gospel as preached by Paul spoke of the outpouring again of the Holy Spirit. The data on the Spirit’s being is such that there is sufficient warranty to speak of the Holy Spirit as a person. He is not viewed in the New Testament, as is sometimes expressed in the Old Testament, in the form of a divine force or power. In the New Testament he speaks (Acts 8:29 ), commissions (Acts 13:4), forbids (Acts 16:6-7), intercedes (Rom 8:26), guides (John 16:13 , teaches (Acts 15:26), and indwells the believer ( John 14:17 ) . The common attributes of will (1Co 12:11) , knowledge (1Co 2:10-11) , and love ( Rom 15:30) are his. His very name is Holy Spirit, and wrong can be committed against him (Acts 5:3; Heb 10:29) .

If one raises objections one must do so on rational rather than scriptural grounds, for in the Scriptures he is called Spirit of God (1Co 2:11) . His presence is ubiquitous (Psa 139:7 ), whereby he indwells the hearts of all believers (John 14:17) . The interchange of the different titles speaks of the same person of the Holy Spirit who dwells in the believer ( 1Co 6:19 ) , who is the temple of God ( 1Co 3:16), and this is equivalent to "Christ in you" (Col 1:27) .

Beginning with these biblical equations we can go on to discuss certain ideas.

Inasmuch as the Spirit came at Pentecost in a unique way, are we to conclude that prior to Pentecost the Spirit was absent or did not exist? If one answered affirmatively, then there is no answer to such references in the Old Testament in which the Spirit of the Lord moved upon the waters in creation (Gen 1:2) , or in the history of Israel whereby God directed its development through prophetic leadership-- leadership in whom the Spirit of --God rested. The obvious conclusion is that the Spirit of the Lord was, is, and shall forever be, because he is of the same nature as God. In light of the statement that the Spirit of God has continuity with the nature of God and is at one with him, one can look to certain manifestations of the Spirit in a unique way and see these manifestations in light of his eternalness. In light of this the baptism of Jesus has a relationship to the diverse manifestations of the Spirit. The significance of his baptism, in which the Spirit descended upon him, is that indication is given whereby Jesus is marked off as the "permanent bearer of the Spirit."⁴ In this context the closeness of the Trinitarian relationship is declared as well as the distinctiveness of the persons. The Spirit and the Son are not separated, but also they cannot be identified; that is, they cannot be confused.⁵

Similarly, viewing the unique manifestation of the Spirit at Pentecost, several basic ideas come forth. First, the Spirit came according to promise and therefore his ministry is to be viewed in relation to the words of Christ. Second, the Spirit does not supersede the presence of Christ. The faith of the church must always be Christ-centered, not Spirit-centered. Third, the Spirit witnesses to the fact of redemption which has the central place in the proclamation of the church. Fourth, the Spirit universalizes the work of redemption. By this is meant that the time barrier of centuries is broken, and the Spirit makes it possible for the atonement to have meaning and power for the twenty-first century, or contemporary witnesses in any era. Without this continuity of the Spirit the later generations would know of Christ only in a historical sense of knowing a fact. But because of the resurrection and the universalizing activity of the Spirit, the modern generation, as well as intervening ones, can know a Person.

Another idea related here is that worship is Trinitarian in nature. The Christian worships the Father through the Son in the Spirit. Jesus spoke of true worship as being spiritual in nature, for God is Spirit (John 4:24). The baptismal formula implies the same concept. This relationship is not detailed to any large degree in the Scriptures and what God has not given we cannot in certainty know. The traditional doctrine of the relationships within the nature of God is summed up by Barth: "By being the Father in Himself from eternity God brings Himself forth from eternity as the Son. By being the Son from eternity, He comes forth from eternity from Himself as Father. In this eternal bringing forth of Himself and coming forth from Himself, He posits Himself a third time as the Holy Spirit; i.e., as the love which unifies Him in Himself."⁶ In this we have to confess a mystery.The Work and Activity of the Spirit In the New Testament we are given more information on the work of the Spirit than on his person.

Redemptive Activity The Spirit’s work in the individual begins in the area of redemption. Redemption implies a need of knowing one’s helplessness. Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s work in terms of the conviction of sin (John 16:8-9 ) . Without this sense of self-understanding, man the sinner does not know from what heights he has fallen. Awareness of his own sin makes regeneration become a possibility. Jesus described this as a new birth (John 3:5) . The apostle spoke of it as a new creation that takes place within the life of man (2Co 5:17 ) . This is also described in terms of the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Tit 3:5) . When redemption is an accomplished fact the Spirit does not depart from the believer but indwells him. (Eph 1:13 ) . Again, Jesus promised the spirit who would dwell with us and in us (John 16:17) . At this point, one may speak of the continuing redemptive activity of the Spirit in transforming the believer into the image of Christ. This has been commonly called sanctification. In the continuing growth in Christian understanding and grace, the believer is to bear the fruits of the Spirit, listed as "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance" ( Gal 5:22 ) . Sanctification could also be described as seeking to have the mind of Christ (Php 2:1-4) . The ultimate transformation to the likeness of Christ will come at his Parousia ( 1Jn 3:2 ) . The future transformation means that perfection is unattainable this side of death. Where perfection in Christian living is professed, the seriousness of sin is usually watered down.

Gifts of the Spirit A gift of the Spirit is a qualification granted to the believer to enable him to accomplish his Christian calling. There are a number of gifts listed in several parts of the New Testament. Paul tells the Corinthians of the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, glossalalia or tongues, interpretation of tongues, apostleship, teaching, the gift of helping, and administration ( 1Co 12:8-10, 1Co 12:28) . To other churches he speaks of the gift of liberality (Rom 12:8), the gift of evangelism (Eph 4:11 ), and the gift of the ministry (Eph 4:11 ) .

These are gifts related to Christian living in all of its diversity. One may go beyond the gifts of the Spirit to say that personal ability of any order is a gift of God. Personal talents are not achieved. We cannot boast in our native talent, for we did not produce it ourselves. There is therefore no ground for boasting in the possession of any gift of life.

One implication of the gifts not always recognized is that God does not call a man to a church vocation for which he has not been equipped. But each has his own gift (1Co 12:6-7), and each is under obligation to serve the body of Christ in accord with his gift. Because of the diversity of the gifts of the Spirit, it is presumptuous to exalt one gift over the other or assume that all believers should have the same gift (1Co 12:29-30).

There is an order within the various gifts of the Spirit. Paul names apostles first, prophets second, and teachers third ( 1Co 12:28 ) . In comparing preaching with the gift of tongues, the latter is placed in a secondary role with the admonition to seek the higher gifts.

Before turning to a discussion of two particular gifts of the Spirit, it should be laid down as a principle that possession of any gift is not a guarantee of spiritual depth. The church at Corinth possessed all the gifts; but its members were described by Paul as babes, unable to assimilate solid spiritual food ( 1Co 3:1-3. The gift of healing and the gift of tongues are gifts that perplex some modern Christians. The gift of healing is a gift presumed to be exercised by such diverse groups as Pentecostals and Episcopalians. It is clearly mentioned in the New Testament as a gift ( 1Co 12:9), and James encourages his readers to exercise the prayer of faith for the sick (Jas 5:14). A distinction must be made between divine healing and faith healing. The passages in the New Testament speak with reference to divine healing. God can and does heal, but this is not contingent upon our faith but upon his mercy and will. Faith healing, on the other hand, stresses the necessity of faith on the part of the sick and implies that if they are not healed it is due to a lack of faith on their part. It tacitly implies that one has the right to be healed. It seems evident that the gift of healing is not a guarantee for healing all people. In Ephesus, Paul was used by God to heal many people, but later on he could do nothing for Trophimus ( 2Ti 4:20) or Timothy, to whom he sent a message that he should secure some medicine for his stomach’s sake (1Ti 5:23) . Where healing is regarded as every Christian’s right, there are certain nonbiblical conclusions at work. First, there is no promise in the Scriptures that every person has the right to be healed. If there were, this could go on theoretically until the person would never die. Second, when some men suffer, they achieve a personality of greatness that perhaps would not have been possible without a measure of suffering. This is not to justify suffering as a means of achieving good but to recognize a fact of life. Physical infirmity and spiritual growth are related in the history of great names within the church. Pascal never knew a healthy day in his life, and Luther was always haunted by a sense of despair. The same holds true for others.

Third, we must remember that Paul had the gift of healing but was unable to secure deliverance from his "thorn in the flesh," for it was in God’s wisdom a means of expressing his power in Paul’s life.

Faith healing has been overrun by fraudulent practices. Several years ago a study was made of the healing movement by a southern Presbyterian. He secured permission to observe in the meetings of many different "healers," and his findings are as follows: First, "All healers make use of a certain psychological phenomenon which is called `the ready-made frame of desire.’ "⁷ That is, crowds come expecting to be healed. Second, they operate on the well-known fact that about 80 percent of the ills that trouble Americans are psychosomatic. This means that the healers look for those who have inorganic diseases. Third, the healers generally screen the applicants. People suffering from organic diseases like cancer, polio, and tuberculosis are screened out of the lines. Fourth, healing "techniques’ are applied. The near blind are turned to face the floodlights which brings any shadow into sharp relief and the sight is said to be "coming." For the deaf a large pocket watch is pressed against the "temporal bone." Depending on the fact that few people are stone deaf the "ticking will penetrate the auditory nerve by means of vibration through the bone."⁸ Other techniques are used for specific cases. The important question is : are the healings genuine? Stegall and Harwood conclude that they are devoid of a real relationship to apostolic miracles.⁹ Any changes that take place for the better can be explained on two bases-suggestion or deliberate fraud.¹⁰

We conclude that divine healing, but not faith healing, is the key to understanding the idea in the New Testament. The account in James (Jas 5:13-16) speaks of church order in which the elders, not a healer are called to pray. There are no offerings taken, no books or records sold, and no personal prestige is to be gained. The prayer of faith on the part of the elders is emphasized, not the faith of the sick. In the New Testament only five people who were healed are said to have faith. In the case of the other twenty-four, there is no reference to faith. In addition, it is difficult to require faith on the part of Lazarus who is dead. But there is a legitimate role for the church to play in praying for the sick. This is a ministry given by Jesus (Mat 25:31-36), and it has not terminated. The gift of tongues, or glossolalia, was first exercised on the day of Pentecost. There are only two significant accounts of the phenomenon, Acts 2:1-47 and 1Co 12:1-31; 1Co 13:1-13; 1Co 14:1-40 A comparison of these two accounts is necessary. The gift of tongues at Pentecost was used to address men, to communicate ideas, to preach the gospel concerning Christ, that people who spoke in various dialects might understand. The question has been raised whether it was a miracle of speaking or hearing, but apart from this it does not have the problems associated with I Corinthians.

Glossolalia was used at Corinth to address God and was understood only by use of an interpreter. Moreover, glossolalia involved individuals alone, and minimized preaching and its importance (cf.1Co 14:2-281Co 14:2-5; 1Co 14:13-14; 1Co 14:19; 1Co 14:27-28 ) .

There are two basic views on the Corinthian experience: one is that the "tongues" were languages, and the other is that they were ecstatic utterances. The latter idea has received the greater support. There are some serious questions in receiving the last opinion, although it is the most popular. First, it is a big jump from languages in Acts to ecstatic utterances in Corinth. The same word is used in Acts and Corinthians. How is it possible to go from communication in languages to ecstatic utterances as commonly interpreted in Corinthians? Second, glossolalia was a sign for unbelievers ( 1Co 14:21) and this refers to an Old Testament passage: "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people." It seems more probable that the stranger would be impressed by languages than by ecstatic utterances. If the Corinthian phenomenon were ecstatic utterances some scholars would equate it with similar phenomena in mystery, heathen, and primitive religions. It is certain, however, that the Corinthian experience was understood by Paul to be a gift of God.

Whatever was the nature of the tongues, Paul gave definite direction concerning their use. They were not to be used in public worship without someone who could interpret (1Co 14:28) , and even then no more than two or three were to speak. In contrast to present phenomenon, speakers-in-tongues in Corinth were able to control themselves. One must be cautious in equating contemporary glossolalia with the New Testament experience.

What is the value of the gift? Any answer to this question must include the initiatory nature of the day of Pentecost. Pentecost is the beginning of a great spiritual fact, the age of the Spirit. When the foundation had been established the framework was no longer needed.

Glossolalia arrested the attention of Jerusalem, but once it focused its attention on the disciples something else became all the more important--the preaching of the apostles. The sign was incomplete in itself and needed preaching to complete it. In other words, the gift of tongues is not the capstone of the Christian faith. Paul’s estimate of the secondary place of glossolalia is emphatic: ( 1 ) note the comparison between five words of understanding and ten thousand words in a "tongue :" ( 2 ) note the prominence of prophesying, which can be translated as preaching; and ( 3 ) note what edifies or builds up the church ( 1Co 14:22-23; 1Co 14:3-51Co 14:24-29 ) .

One question needing an answer is whether glossolalia is a present day gift of the Spirit. Some argue yes on the basis that God is always the same. In periods of revival it is said that strange things happen. Others argue no, on the basis that the tongues were like miracles and served as a temporary aid to the church in getting started.

Whatever the answer to the question above, we are suspicious of any movement that is productive of division when the Scriptures place the gift in a secondary position.

We must keep in mind that the church at Corinth was the only church seemingly to have the gift beyond Pentecost. This should enjoin caution. Second, present-day advocates often imply that everybody has the right to speak in tongues. Even if it is a gift today, there is not a word of support for this implication. Third, there seems to be little practical use of glossolalia. If missionaries did not have to study the foreign language of his mission area, a practical use of the gift could be found, but this is not the case. Fourth, the danger in the present-day movement is that it becomes the badge of spirituality leading to spiritual pride. The advocates of speaking in tongues work to involve other Christians in this experience to the neglect of the proper role of the proclamation of the gospel.

New Testament Terms

There are certain terms that lend themselves to misunderstanding among Christians. Without a precise understanding of certain terms relating to the Spirit, confusion and anxiety often result. The baptism of the Spirit: This term, occurring in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33 , can be defined as the activity of the Spirit in which estranged man by his faith in Christ is placed (immersed or baptized) into the life-giving relationship in Christ. This happens at faith. Regeneration and the baptism of the Spirit are simultaneous. One receives the Spirit when he believes (Eph 1:13). There is no text commanding believers to seek the Spirit’s baptism. Why seek that which one already has? The baptism of the Spirit is something that all believers have by virtue of their believing and trusting in Christ. The certainty of the Spirit in one’s life does not depend upon feeling but upon the promise of God. The promise is that the man who trusts in Christ as Saviour is the recipient of the Spirit. The filling of the Spirit: The fulness of the Spirit is comparable to growth in sanctification or in purity of life. The ultimate picture of the believer is Christlikeness. Being filled with the Spirit does not imply that one has more of the Spirit (quantitatively), but that the Spirit has more of the believer in his divine control. On this basis there are ebbs and flows of knowing the presence of the Spirit. One is more usable at times than at others. The fullness of the Spirit can be lost ( decrease in influence ) and regained over and over, whereas one does not lose the baptism of the Spirit, or one’s place in Christ. It is evident, on many different occasions in Acts, that the disciples prayed and were filled with the Spirit. At a later time they were again filled. The Spirit in this sense is not a substance that is used up, but relates to one’s dedication to the kingdom of God which is more intense at certain times than at other times. The apostles were not men who stayed filled with the Spirit to the highest degree. It seems evident that "the fullness of the Spirit" was connected with their present commission of service. When a new point of service came they were filled with God’s grace, ready for the confrontation. It is doubtful whether man could stand a continuous emotional stress involving a continual fullness.

It is important to maintain the distinction involved in this term with relation to assurance of salvation. The ebb of the Spirit’s influence does not involve a loss of redemption. Falling from grace is a contradiction in terms if grace is understood in the New Testament sense of mercy or benevolent favor. Faith knows the promise of God that his Spirit is with us to the end. The indwelling Spirit.--The fact that the Spirit of God indwells the inner life of the believer is important. The Spirit of God links the contemporary life of the believer to the redemptive acts of Christ’s death. The living Spirit makes Christian faith alive and keeps it from being a paper religion bound to a lifeless book. Where this concept is lost, various forms of barren religion give birth to a substitute in the form of mysticism. Mysticism arises where moralism or barren dogma has fallen on deaf ears. An understanding of the role of the Spirit of God can offset these dangers. The promise of Jesus concerning the Spirit is that the Comforter would take his place and abide with us and in us (John 14:16-17) . To the Romans, Paul wrote of the Spirit of God dwelling within (Rom 8:9-11) . Other passages speak of the same.¹¹ The role of the Spirit’s presence is that the believer is assured of the validity of his faith in Christ. His presence is the guarantee that one shall be resurrected as Christ was. As the believer abides in Christ, he is led to pray with the Spirit who intercedes for him (Rom 8:26) . It is by the Spirit that we are taught the meaning of the Scriptures for our lives ( 1Jn 2:27 ) . It is the Spirit who lifts our heavy hearts to hope for things better when our circumstances do not warrant such (Rom 15:13 ) . The Spirit directs, when we are willing, in applying the concepts of the New Testament to our world situation (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:18) . Without the presence of God’s Spirit, contact with the taproot of Christianity has been severed. The presence of the Spirit in the life of the believer removes Christian faith from the realm of human striving and places it alone in the category of grace and life. This emphasis in Christianity is to be distinguished from classical mysticism. Classical mysticism attempts a unification of the believer with God or the World Soul through steps of purgation, contemplation, and, finally, the experience of oneness in ecstasy. Even Christian mysticism as seen in the Middle Ages is different from the New Testament theology on the presence of the Spirit within the believer. Christian mysticism parallels classical mysticism in purification and contemplation but differs in imitating Christ. Imitating Christ refers to the use of ascetic exercises in seeking spiritual illumination. Christ is viewed more as an example than as a mediator. In the New Testament, in contrast, "it is clear that we have not to do with an immediacy without a Mediator."¹² The experience of unification differs also. In classical and medieval mysticism it can involve a vision of the essence of God, or it can mean that the will of the person is dissolved into the Eternal. The goal is absorption of the person into the divine, as a drop of individual spray returns to a unity with the ocean.

Christian mysticism is opposed to the foregoing. At no time in Christian mysticism is the personality to be lost and in no sense does the Spirit become identical with ourselves.¹³ The doctrine of the indwelling Spirit loses its meaning apart from the mediatorship of Christ. Mysticism of the classical type tends to reject the historical importance of Christ. It is impossible to gain a closer relationship to God than that which is found in the Spirit of Christ’s presence within man. In finding Christ one finds God. Apart from Christ, one never finds God. On the guidance of the Spirit in the life of the believer, it might be laid down as a principle that the Spirit does not command believers to do that which is contrary to the Scriptures. The Bible sets forth guidelines concerning the work of the Spirit, and one needs to expect harmony between the Spirit’s activity and the Scriptures. People who defend their actions on the basis of deep-felt conviction when that action is contrary to the Scriptures must come to question their long deep-felt feelings. It may be that feeling and imagination have gotten the upper hand. One’s immediate sense of what the Spirit of God declares, apart from the Scriptures, may be the result of egotistical desire for personal advancement.

One problem relating to personal conviction involves people desiring to enter the ministry. Occasionally one sees men who profess a call to the ministry. In preparation their academic work is poor, their ability to speak is halting, and their facility for getting along with people is low. The possibilities of a church’s retaining such a person as pastor are very low. The solution to this problem lies in differentiating between a call to the ministry and the sincere desire to serve God in a dedicated way. Undue emphasis has been placed on the ministry as the most dedicated of callings. God "calls" to a diversity of vocations. If God has not given native ability for a specific calling-- and this includes the ministry--one may question whether God is directing toward this area of service. The Church and the Spirit The Scriptures speak of the believer as being baptized in one Spirit into one body. Without the Spirit one cannot enter into the body of Christ. Without implying any idea of election, one may say that it is the Lord who incorporates the believer into the church (Acts 2:47). In this manner, the Spirit is free and is not bound to sacraments. The story of the church is the epic of how the Spirit of God has acted in history and spoken through it. The church is by no means the successor to Christ. The church is the instrument of the Spirit of Christ who is directing its destiny. "The Spirit is the true vicar of Christ, Christ’s alter ego, and was known as such in the Church by the fact that he was encountered in the same role of Lord (Kyrios) as Christ himself had been."¹⁴ In its outward appearance, the church seems always beset by human troubles. In its inward structure as the body of Christ it has the heartbeat of the Saviour and stands with ultimate perfection. Because of its humanness, the church has not been infallible. There is no doubt about the infallibility of God’s Spirit but the humanness of the believer has not always been open to the directing of God’s Spirit.¹⁵ The history of church councils will bear out the fact that not every man was delivered from erroneous thinking. One shudders to think about, and hesitates to affirm, the fact that orthodox doctrine is simply the result of which idea got the most votes. In Roman Catholicism there is a separation of the Spirit from the Scriptures and the Spirit is regarded as the life or soul of the church. Thus it can be maintained that the church continues to be taught by the Spirit without any necessary dependence on the Scriptures. This amounts to nothing more than a return to the "inner light" as the authority of the church, a concept that Rome is generally careful to disassociate itself from. The biblical image of the work of the Spirit is his association with the Scriptures, the words of Christ, and it is through this media that he speaks. It is true that the Spirit indwells the body of Christ, but the church is taught by the Spirit through the Scriptures, not independent of them. The modern church needs to know the fellowship of God’s Spirit through Christ. The restlessness of the modern church can be explained in part by its refusal to acknowledge the mediating role of God, the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion The doctrine of the Spirit, like the doctrine of the Trinity, deals with a vital but often neglected part of the Christian faith. Remove this basic element and Christian faith is shorn of its power. Reject the role of the Spirit, and Christian faith becomes an ethical standard which no man can achieve. The indwelling of the Spirit, however, means that man can be transformed, renewed, regenerated. It removes the story of Jesus from being a story about a man of the past and makes the fruit of the life of Christ a present reality for man’s redemptive needs.

Addendum The Holy Spirit and the Charismatic Movement The modern-day charismatic movement has an unusual doctrine of the Holy Spirit. A basic assumption of the movement is that the baptism of the Spirit is a post-conversion experience. In a widely circulated booklet titled Baptists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, one pastor declares :

“To tell a born-again Christian that he does not have the Spirit is to show ignorance because we must have the Spirit to be children of God. But there is a difference in having the Spirit in regeneration, and having the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire. . .” ¹⁶ A similar distinction is made by Robert C. Frost in his widely circulated book, Aglow with the Spirit: "It is essential that you know Jesus Christ as your Saviour before you can meet Him as your Baptizer.”¹⁷ The Scripture teaches differently. Peter’s response to the multitude at Pentecost was "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38 ) . Conversion and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are linked in Acts not only in Peter’s sermon, but a surprising relation is seen in Acts 19:1-41 where Paul asks the disciples of John the Baptist: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" Other books of the New Testament link the baptism of the Spirit and conversion just as Paul did in Acts 19:1-41. See how the promised Holy Spirit is linked with believing in Ephesians Eph 1:13. The same relation is seen in Romans Romans 5:1-5 5:1-5 and in Acts Acts 11:17. There is an exception to this relationship in Acts ( Acts 8:1-24) which relates to the hostility problem between the Samaritans and the Jews. A probable reason for this exception is that God did an exceptional thing to incorporate the hybrid Samaritans into the household of God. A special apostolic mission took place for their receiving of the Spirit. The charismatic movement errs in its use of the term "baptism of the Spirit." The charismatics regard baptism of the Spirit as a second blessing, and the filling of the Spirit as a conversion gift. This reverses the use in the New Testament. The baptism of the Spirit is related to conversion, the filling of the Spirit is a term related to testimony and witness for Christ. When the disciples prayed for boldness to witness, God answered by empowering them, which is symbolized in the phrase "filled with the Spirit" (Acts 4:31 ) This occurs several times in Acts and reflects the highs and lows of service. If it be called a second blessing, one must continue to the third, fifth, and hundredth blessing. The charismatic movement has another unusual emphasis. It maintains that the unique model for explaining how the Spirit works is preeminently seen in the Book of Acts. Consider the following:

"No one would deny that our criteria for all our church work is found in the Book of Acts. Nobody who knows anything about the Bible denies that our primary example is the Book of Acts. We must go back to the Book of Acts, because that is where God told us the kind of Church He wanted."¹⁸ This argument is suspect for two reasons: ( 1 ) The Book of Acts makes no claim like the above, and (2) we must accept the whole of the New Testament as the basis of faith and practice. A standard of "Acts only" is the partial revival of an Early Church heresy propagated by Marcion who picked out the books of the New Testament that supported his doctrine and rejected the rest of them along with the Old Testament

Even if "Acts only" were accepted as a norm, does the charismatic movement abide by its norm? What about communal living? Do they follow the example of Acts? If Acts is the norm, must we also become Jews before we become Christians? Must we assume the early pattern of witnessing in the synagogue before going to the Gentile? Other questions could be raised. But we must conclude that every Scripture inspired by God gives us the adequate foundation for the church in its doctrine and practical outlook and not a single book separated out for promoting a particular doctrine. A third and more controversial element of the charismatic movement is the idea that speaking in tongues is the only sure evidence that you have been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Think of the implications of the following statements: “ The Scriptural evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.”¹⁹ David J. Du Plessis, the theologian and recognized leader in the movement, wrote,

"People in Pentecostal movements are very fond of the expression, "Tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit." This is not found in Scripture, but it is nevertheless the truth according to the record in the Acts, from the day of Pentecost onward."²⁰ The Bible does not give a basis for saying that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the Spirit’s presence. There are only three instances in Acts where speaking in tongues is noted. These instances are connected with conversion stories of a unique kind and are only three of more than seventeen conversion stories in Acts. The first is in Acts 2:1-47(Acts 2:1-12) when the church, the New Israel, the New Covenant community is founded. Only the apostles communicated in languages to the multitude. Then three thousand people were converted and Peter’s promise was fulfilled. Nothing is said about the converts speaking in tongues or that they were supposed to. The second glossolalia story is connected with the Jewish issue of fellowship with non-Jews, and the dramatic conversion of Cornelius and his family. Moreover, Peter and his friends were surprised that God gave His Spirit to the Gentiles as well as their speaking in tongues. This was the official turning point in which Christ’s gospel is seen for all people. It may be seen as a second Pentecost.(Acts 10:44-48) The third glossolalia story appears in Acts 19:1-41. The context in Acts 18:24-28; Acts 19:1-7 indicates the problem of the relation of John the Baptist’s followers to Christ. The story indicates that John’s baptism was not related to the Spirit and was incomplete and non-Christian. These twelve men were converted to Christ (Acts 19:4-7 ), were baptized, and then spoke in tongues. Thus there are three examples or parables telling the basic truths about the uniqueness of the Christian church. It is the New Israel, it is open to Gentiles and Jews, and the movement of John the Baptist finds its fulfillment in the Christian church. The other conversion stories say nothing about tongues. Is it not strange that they are absent in those stories? But there is another dimension to the statement that speaking in tongues is an evidence of the Spirit’s presence. What about non-Christian glossolalia? Scholars have described this phenomena among primitive religions, Islam, and other world religions. Does this mean they too have the Spirit of God? This would prove more than even the charismatics would want to conclude.

What, then, is the proper evidence given to the believer whereby he can know he has the Spirit of God? Scripture is clear that this is based upon a promise and a sign. The promise relates to being baptized (Acts 2:38 ) and water baptism is the sign of it. This must not be viewed mechanically, for Simon was baptized but unconverted (Acts 8:14-24). Instead, the promised Holy Spirit which Jesus talked about indwells any who believe and He does this when one believes (Eph 1:13) . No better assurance can be given than God’s promise.

We must now look at a facet of the movement that is frequently overlooked. The charismatic movement has a methodology. In other words, there are conditions or steps for coming to speak in tongues. A sample list would include "separation from sin, repentance and baptism, hearing of faith, obedience, intense desire, asking of God."²¹.    Frost tells how he counseled people to begin speaking in tongues : " We encouraged her to move her lips and tongue so as to form syllables, realizing in faith that these would be the prompting of God’s Spirit".²²

Du Plessis notes "The moment you believe His word, His promises, you dare to speak, and the Spirit gives utterances.”²³ Again, Frost says, "I suggested he lift his voice and move his lips and tongue in faith realizing that in this way he would be cooperating with the Holy Spirit’s desire to direct his praise."²⁴

Many of the testimonies describe a discontent in their faith, an intense desire for something deeper, a struggle with the meaning of their existence, and then a pursuit of the gift of tongues. Following this procedure, glossolalia in the modern charismatic movement may be the fruit of an intense longing and self-suggestion that brings fulfillment. In evaluating the matter, we believe that the Bible, even the Book of Acts, gives no methodology for speaking in tongues. In the three passages in Acts (2; 10-1 1 ; 19 ) there was no seeking. In Acts 2:1-47 the apostles were sitting, not seeking; in Acts 10:1-48; Acts 11:1-30 they were surprised it happened, which is not intense longing; and in Acts 19:1-41 the Spirit’s presence is connected with baptism as in Acts 2:38.

We must conclude that there are no conditions offered in Acts whereby the apostles were to strive, yearn, struggle, act, or move their lips to initiate the Spirit’s presence. The Spirit came as promised, not as won. If there is a methodology for gaining the second blessing, as the charismatics see it, then Christian faith has become corrupted to the requirements of the Judaizers of the Book of Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians. The Judaizers followed Paul around saying that something more than Christ was needed, that Christ was not adequate, one needed to obey the law of Moses also. The charismatics may be a modern variation of the Judaizers in saying that conversion to Christ is not enough--one must be second-blessed.

If there is any truth at all in Galatians, Colossians, Romans, Hebrews, and other New Testament books, it is that when a man receives Christ as Savior he receives the Spirit as God’s first and last gift of Himself. The charismatic movement has theological problems at its core. Yet many do testify to their spiritual growth in the movement. How can one criticize something that makes for spiritual growth? Any evaluation must be on biblical rather than on other grounds. Our chief criticism is that the movement is not honest with its use of Scripture. We must not begin with experience and try to fit the New Testament to it. We must begin rather with the New Testament and seek to evaluate our experiences. There is no religious authority in experience. The real question, then, is: Is there biblical authority for this particular modern religious experience? Is it the same as the experience described in the New Testament? A fair examination of the New Testament brings us to a negative answer to both questions. The literature points to self-suggestion that can be emotionally lifting. But psychological lifts must not be confused with biblical theology.

VII. The Holy Spirit

¹ Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, trans. David Cairns and T. H. L. Parker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), p. 9.

² George S. Hendry, The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 37.

³George Foot Moore, Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954), I, 421.

⁴Hendry, op. cit., p. 19.

⁵Barth, Church Dogmatics, I-l, 542.

⁶Church Dogmatics, I-1, 552-53.

⁷Carroll Stegall and Carl C. Harwood, The Modern Tongues and Healing Movement (Denver: Western Bible Institute, n.d.), pp. 7-8.

⁸Ibid., p. 10.

⁹Ibid., p. 27.

¹⁰Ibid., p. 28.

¹¹ Cf. 1Co 3:16-17; 1Co 6:19; 2Ti 1:14; 1Jn 2:27; 1Jn 3:9; 1Jn 4:4; 1Jn 4:12-13; 1Jn 4:15; Jas 4:5.

¹²Brunner, Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and Consummation, p. 17.

¹³Cf. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958 ) , IV-2,519 ¹⁴Hendry, op. cit., p. 65.

¹⁵Cf. A Handbook of the Catholic Faith, p. 124. `"The mission of the Holy Spirit is so to guide the leaders of the Church that they do not fall into error, and with them the whole Church of Christ."

¹⁶ John H. Ostein, Baptists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Los Angeles: Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship International, 1963, p. 8.

¹⁷Robert C. Frost, Aglow with the Spirit, Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, p.111 ¹⁸ Osteen, Baptists and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, p. 10.

¹⁹Ibid., p.5 ²⁰David J. Du Plessis, The Spirit Bade Me Go, Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1970, p. 89.

²¹ Frost, Aglow with the Spirit, p. 94.

²² Frederick D. Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 92.

²³Du Plessis, The Spirit Bade Me Go, p. 72.

²⁴Frost, Aglow with the Spirit, p. 91