A Sophisticated Pentecostal View

The number of views re Spirit-Baptism is amazing and is well-catalogued here by Sam Storms. One would have to conclude from this variety that the subject of the Holy Spirit Baptism is not an easy one!!

Douglas A. Oss in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views presented a case for a Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of the present work of the Spirit that is more sophisticated than what is normally given. He argued that just as the Holy Spirit's work in the Old Testament is both "inner-transforming" (in anticipation, Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27; 37:14) and "empowering" (Num 11:24-27 etc; Judg 14:6.19 etc) so it is in the New Testament.

Oss raised the important issue as to whether the writings of St Luke and St Paul have different emphases regarding the Spirit and he answers that affirmatively. Their emphases are different but complementary. St Paul focuses strongly on the "inner-transforming" nature of the Spirit while St Luke focuses almost exclusively in Acts on the empowering of believers for proclamation of the gospel.

Therefore, Oss contended that it is an error to conflate these two different works of the Spirit.

The prophet Joel specifically sees the Day when the empowering by the Spirit will be universalised (Joel 2:28-32), which occurred on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21) when the Spirit filled the 120 (pace those who say it was only the 12 apostles). Luke's emphasis on the Holy Spirit as empowerment is borne out by the writer's mention of Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit after his water baptism (Lu 4:1) and returning after His temptation in the power of the Spirit (v.14) to speak in the synagogue at Nazareth with "the Spirit upon Him" (v.18). Interesting too that Luke phrases the "prayer" material in his account (ch 11) to climax with the words, "how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him" (v.13, cf Matt 7:11, where Matthew has "good gifts").

Luke ended his gospel account with Jesus promising the disciples that they would be "clothed with power from on high" (24:48) and opens Acts repeating the promise of power (1:4-5,8). Not that Luke was completely unaware of the regenerative power of the Spirit (Acts 15:8-9) but his main emphasis is on empowerment.

On the other hand, St Paul also knows the empowering of the Holy Spirit for he warns against quenching the Spirit and despising prophesying (1 Thess 5.19-20).

Hence, Oss' conclusion is that Pentecostals believe all Christians receive the Holy Spirit at conversion but a charismatic receiving of the Spirit is also available to all the saints of God, a filling that needs to be constantly renewed (Eph 5:18).

Table Waiters

In the Acts 6 where the seven deacons are to be picked, one of the criteria used for their selection is that they are to be "full of the Holy Spirit" (v.3).

These deacons were ostensibly picked to wait on tables but two of them at least did more than that. Stephen, one of the seven, is described as being "full of faith and of the Holy Spirit". Why the two things I wonder? Why isn't full of faith enough?

That designation reminds us that it's important not only to have faith but also to be full of the Holy Spirit even if it's only to wait on tables!!!

This man so full of God, so full of the Spirit performs "great signs and wonders among the people" (v.8). His opponents not able to withstand "the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke" (v.10) have him falsely accused dragged before the Jewish council to defend himself.

In Acts 7, the angelic Stephen (6.15) castigates those hearing his defence as those who resist the Holy Spirit (v.51) and then being "full of the Holy Spirit" sees the glory of God and Jesus at his right hand (v.55-56).

The next time we are chosen to be a "table waiter" we need to ask, am I full of faith AND full of the Holy Spirit?

Distinguishing Initiation From Empowerment

Along with a number of writers, it is easy to agree that baptism with the Holy Spirit (Spirit-Baptism) is an experience of entry into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12.13).

That's why, so it is said, that Spirit-Baptism is closely connected to water-baptism (e.g., Acts 2.38; 9.17-19) and with repentance and trust in Christ (Acts 19.4,5) which is based on a 'receiving of the Word' Acts 8.4 & 14,15) because each in its way is part of the same spiritual reality.

Reception of the Word about Christ moves one towards the initiating waters of baptism (Acts 8.35-38) and the filling of the Spirit seals that covenant with God (Eph 1.13).

The very fact that Jesus is heralded by John the Baptist (in all 4 gospels) as the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit is evidence that Spirit-Baptism is mightily important. John believed Spirit-Baptism defined Jesus' ministry as contrasted with his (Jn 1.26; 33). In John 7, Jesus cries out at the Feast of Tabernacles re the Spirit flowing out of the hearts of thirsty Jesus believers (v. 38-39). (But the account mentions that only after Jesus' glorification is the Spirit to be given in this sense.)

Nonetheless, although believing the Spirit Baptism is tied to initiation into the body of Christ, is not to say that it is identical with initiation. In this respect, the Pentecostals are correct. The cases in the Acts (particularly ch 8 and 19) distinguish between initiation and Spirit-Baptism although a distinction does not mean a separation (Acts 2:38).

Did You Receive When You Believed?

Being a former Pentecostal (third-generation) but now longing for my present denomination (the Anglican Church of Australia) to experience the wind of the Spirit in new ways, this post reflects on the account of John the Baptist's disciples found by St Paul in Acts 19.1-7.

These Ephesian disciples prompt St Paul to ask, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And the question for us must be, 'What was it about the behaviour or demeanour of these disciples that led St Paul to ask that question?' I say that because I cannot imagine Anglican or Reformed or Baptist believers being asked this question by one of their leaders!

Surely today we would answer: 'Why do you ask such a strange question? Of course I have received the Holy Spirit otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian believer at all.' And Paul's own writings would seem to support that position for he does say in Romans 8.9 that any who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to Christ. So, being a Christian and having the Spirit are concurrent.

However, we are still left with Paul's question to these Ephesian disciples.

We can only infer from that question that when people received the Holy Spirit, things happened. Those around saw something occur (and consequences followed). As John Piper (staunch Calvinist in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards) has said, the receiving of the Holy Spirit in the Acts is "experiential".

That leaves open the problem as to why many Christian believers today do not know of any experience of the Holy Spirit's having "fallen on them" (Acts 8.16).

We will address this issue in the next post.

Early Australian Pentecostalism

I grew up from the age of 10 to around 29 years of age, at the Pentecostal Church at Richmond Temple, 343 Bridge Rd Richmond, an inner suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. During most of that time, Pastor Charles Lewis Greenwood (1891-1969) led the Temple as its minister.

There I committed and re-committed my life to Christ at many altar calls, was filled with the Spirit and spoke with other tongues, was baptised in water, and had my marriage to Elizabeth solemnised by C.L. (as he was affectionately known) in 1968. Recently, I have read The C.L. Greenwood Story by George Forbes and been inspired again by the message of the Australian Pentecostal Movement.

My family has had a profound association with the Pentecostal movement. My paternal grandfather/grandmother were associated with Good News Hall (GNH) in North Melbourne, along with their 11 children, with my father (number 6 child) remaining strongly influenced by GNH until his death in 2005.

GNH, the first Pentecostal group in Australia, was established in 1909 by Janet Lancaster. GNH wanted to be founded on the words of scripture alone and rejected the orthodox creeds of the early church. This stand led them to heterodox views re the Trinity, the soul's existence after death and the eternal punishment of the wicked. Nevertheless, the group was very charitable to others who believed differently (Chant, Heart of Fire, p. 54) and to those who sought to disparage them.

Their doctrinal position drew the ire of other Pentecostal groups, chiefly the Sunshine Revival group (1916, C.L.Greenwood and A.C.Valdez) and the Southern Evangelical Mission (1911, Robert Horne, Caulfield) and also overseas speakers that GNH invited to Australia such as Smith Wigglesworth and Aimee Semple McPherson. By the late 1930s the group, by then The Apostolic Faith Mission (name changed 1927), had completely collapsed. Nevertheless, much of present Australian Pentecostalism owes a debt to Janet Lancaster and her church's work.

My maternal grandfather who was saved through The Brethren later came "into Pentecost" at Richmond Temple, to where the Sunshine Revival group had finally come, through the invitation of a good work-mate whose son would years later become the pastor of Richmond Temple for over 20 years, Philip Hills!

I know growing up in a heterodox family I got to know the bible fairly well. At least I got to know some parts of the bible from a heterodox point of view at least!! But the Pentecostal (and Brethren) Sunday schools I attended over many years taught me well. We were taught to memorise scripture and I would now argue that memorisation of scripture is extremely important for building a solid life of faith.

Much in present-day Pentecostal churches has changed since the time I was brought up in it. Change is of course inevitable; but whether it is change for the better needs careful examination. One of the greatest differences I think between then and now is that then much was made of the second coming of Christ, that Jesus was coming soon! Our hymns and songs testified to it; whereas now, the greater emphasis is on temporal lives.

The notion of being prosperous would have been virtually incomprehensible to the early Pentecostals who struggled through WW1 and then an economic depression. ((In fact, GNH ran a soup kitchen during the 1920s (Chant, Heart of Fire, p. 48-51)). Their great hope was the wealth of heaven with Christ that awaited them, not the trinkets this world offers.

But now I am an Anglican; but an Anglican that appreciates the lessons I learned in early Pentecostal circles. An Anglican who yearns to experience the reviving of my present church in the joy of the Spirit so that many others outside may come to know the present, transforming power of God in their lives for the glory of God.