"I would start by saying that in the book of Acts, everywhere the receiving of the Holy Spirit is described, it is experiential. What I mean is that it's not just a logical inference that you know has happened to you only because something else has happened. Instead, it has effects that are clearly discernible. In the book of Acts a person knows when he receives the Holy Spirit. It is an experience with effects you can point to.
Let me illustrate this from Acts 19:2. The situation is that Paul has come to Ephesus and found there some disciples who, as it turns out, only know the baptism of John the Baptist and have not been baptized into the name of Jesus. Paul detects something wrong and breaks the whole thing open by asking a key question in verse 2: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
Now that is a remarkable question for contemporary American evangelicals who have been taught by and large that the way you know you have received the Holy Spirit is that you are a believer. We have been told that you can know that you have the Holy Spirit because all who believe have the Holy Spirit. It's a logical inference. So if we want to know if someone has received the Holy Spirit, we would ask, "Have you believed on Jesus?" If the answer is yes, then we know the person received the Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit is a logical inference, not an experience to point to.
But Paul's question isn't like that, is it? Paul says, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" We scratch our heads and say, "I don't get it, Paul. If you assume we believed, why don't you assume we received the Holy Spirit? We've been taught that all who believe receive the Holy Spirit. We've been taught to just believe that the Spirit is there whether there are any effects or not. But you talk as if there is a way to know we've received the Holy Spirit different from believing. You talk as if we could point to an experience of the Spirit apart from believing in order to answer your question."
And that is, in fact, the way Paul talks. When he asks, "Did you receive the Spirit when you believed?" he expects that a person who has "received the Holy Spirit" knows it, not just because it's an inference from his faith in Christ, but because it is an experience with effects that we can point to.
That is what runs all the way through this book of Acts. All the explicit descriptions of receiving the Holy Spirit are experiential (not inferential)." ~ John Piper, 1991, What Does it Mean to Receive the Holy Spirit?
In another post, Warnock then quotes Charles Spurgeon on the matter. I love this excerpt.
... we have sipped where we might have drunk; we have drunk where we might have bathed; we have bathed up to the ankles where we might have found rivers to swim in. Alas, of many Christians it must be affirmed that they have been naked, and poor, and miserable, when they might in the power of the Holy Spirit have been clad in golden garments, and have been rich and increased in goods. He waiteth to be gracious, but we linger in indifference, like those of whom we read, "They could not enter in because of unbelief." There are many such cases, and therefore it is not improper that I should with all vehemence press home upon you the question of the apostle, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"
We are a sad lot to speak against the full working of the Spirit. Too many limit Him to some minimal acceptable level rather than to lay themselves bare to all that He wants for us.
Technorati Tags: charismata, Signs & Wonders, spiritual gifts
7 comments:
Great quotes. Spurgeon's especially answers the query.
Rick,
interestingly enough, I have posted on this topic at my blog here (http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-charismatism-second-baptism-of.html). And I have taken the opposite position of yours as being the position of Scripture. I see that my post has addressed some of the points you have mentioned here already, so I will just interact with your article with the arguments I written over in that post as background information.
You quoted Warnock as mentioning the incident in Acts. 19:2 with John's disciples. Notwithstanding the fact that such is an interpretation of the passage with a hermeneutical grid which has not proven to be true, the fact of the matter is that Warnock's interpretation is not found in the text. He said that 'there is a way to know we've received the Holy Spirit different from believing', but where in the text is this concept found? It is not. What it proves only is that John's baptism is distinct from Holy Spirit baptism, not that Christian baptism is distinct from Holy Spirit baptism.
Now, you also quoted Warnock as saying 'a person who has "received the Holy Spirit" knows it, not just because it's an inference from his faith in Christ, but because it is an experience with effects that we can point to'. But this is to postulate a false dichotomy between salvation (faith in Christ) and the experience of salvation. However, Scripture in passages like 2 Cor. 5:17 teaches that at salvation, there is both faith and the experience that comes with saving faith. Those who do not have this 'new creation' within them are not saved at all. And in fact, this is the way I read Spurgeon as teaching in the excerpt in this post. He is in all probability asking us to examine our faith cf 2 Cor. 13:5, not to ask whether we are saved but do not have the "Holy Spirit experience" yet.
Daniel - first let me comment that I enjoyed your posts on the topic. I had already read them prior to you commenting here.
I'm not good at long post and especially not at long comments. I think I understand where you are coming from and you deserve a thorough reply ... unfortunately, due to capability on my part combined with time constraints, I will not reply here. Sorry.
I think what I will do instead is make a few more short posts on the topic and in doing so, attempt to answer (probably not satisfy) your questions/points.
That aside, as I read your linked post, I reacted most strongly to the section "Second Baptism of the Holy Spirit". I come from a denomination that down plays the "second baptism". We talk about continuous filling. Also, whether or not there is a "second baptism" has no relevance to my continuationist position.
The reason I reacted strongly to your points was that while I think some may associate the second baptism with pietism and perfectionism, I haven't seen that to be true for the majority and even the statement of faiths that you quote do not lead me to conclude that.
We should be careful not to get tangled up in the implications of this baptism since they are so varied. For example, later in your post you mention tongues as a sign of that baptism but I only know of Pentecostals stating that. To my knowledge, those that are Charismatic typically do not say that and Third Wave people would generally not expect that. This conversation is all about how one defines things.
Anyway, you are writing some excellent things. I'll try to do a little better on my side.
Rick, thanks for your reply, however short it may be. I guess this would be a good ongoing interaction.
You said: 'Also, whether or not there is a "second baptism" has no relevance to my continuationist position.'
And I agree. Fact is I am addressing various aspects of pentecostalism/charismatism, so obviously certain areas would not apply to various groups and peoples, and that's fine. As you can see, I am beginning to start the main section of my series on the Gifts of the Spirit, and I think you will see that I will not link any of them to an embrace of the Second Baptism doctrine. I think it is perfectly possible to be a continualist and yet reject the Second Baptism doctrine.
>'The reason I reacted strongly to your points was that while I think some may associate the second baptism with pietism and perfectionism, I haven't seen that to be true for the majority ...'
Actually, I said: 'Historically, it is an outgrowth of the Wesleyan Holiness movement and its emphasis on piety in a form of perfectionism' and 'The doctrine of the Second Baptism of the Holy Spirit therefore follows the pattern of pietism and perfectionism in its formulation.' (Bold added). That is to say, I am not saying that the doctrine of the Second Baptism is pietism and perfectionism, nor that it leads to it, but that (1) Historically, that is its origin, (2) The doctrine of the Second Baptism is logically and internally most consistent in its native system of pietism/perfectionism where it historically develops.
>'For example, later in your post you mention tongues as a sign of that baptism but I only know of Pentecostals stating that.'
I said: 'Of course, there are various nuances of this doctrine, like the teaching that it is definitely accompanied with the speaking in tongues etc' (Bold added) . That is to say, I am not saying that those who believe in the second baptism necessarily believe that tongues is a sign of that baptism, but that one particular view of that baptism teaches it.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the clarification. I think my over-sensitivity arises from my perception that most of those that spend time arguing against a second baptism do so because they are cessationists.
I like internet communication because it allows people like you and me to exchange ideas but I also struggle with it because the words need to be precise and in doing so the communication becomes unwielding. And even then we make the best effort, we still read through "stained glasses".
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
Rick:
'most of those that spend time arguing against a second baptism do so because they are cessationists.'
Well, historically, before Vineyard and the Sovereign Grace Movement came onto the scene, I would guess all continualists then believe in second baptism?
Daniel - I think you make a fair point ... while it may not have been all, I agree that in the past one would have had difficultly finding someone who didn't think HS Baptism the link to charisma. So I yield to you on that one.
I guess the difficulty now is that some (e.g., MacArthur) have openly dismissed the difference. More irritating is that while some mentally assent that there is a difference (Nathan Busenitz at Pulpit Magazine "The Charismatic Question"), in their hearts they treat charismatics as second class citizens, unintelligent, or heretics (e.g., Pyromaniacs). The latter I suspect more accurately represents the more common heart of MacArthur's disciples.
So again, it's hard but I am trying not to be defensive.
Post a Comment