By Colin Cutler
Final Exam for Principles of Biblical Reasoning (used by permission)
Dr. Martin Erdmann
A Defense of the Faith
“But sanctify the Lord in your hearts; and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”
1 Peter 3:15 is the verse of commission for all apologists: the Greek word translated “answer”—apologia—speaks of a legal defense before a tribunal. Christians are to be able to defend their faith from the attacks of unbelievers. They are told to be able to make a defense to every man who asks what the reason is for their faith.
A few points can be made here. 1) We are to be knowledgeable about what it is we believe; we cannot defend something we do not know. 2) We are to believe it and act upon it (“sanctify the Lord in your hearts…having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” 1 Peter 3:15-16). 3) We have assurance that our faith is reasonable. Contrary to some of the anti-intellectual fideists who say that one must simply “have faith” without or contrary to reason, we are told that we do indeed have a reason for our hope that we must defend. Faith is not simply a volitional leap, but is a rational—I will argue the sole rational—way of interpreting the empirical and metaphysical data. 4) We are to defend our faith with meekness and fear. We are not to fear man—though we are to be humble, with the knowledge at the forefront of our minds that the only difference between us as Christians and others as unbelievers is the grace of God—but are to fear God. We must not sacrifice or compromise the authority of His Word in our attempts to defend it.
Paul reasoned with the Jews from Scripture (Acts 9:22, 17:17) and the Greeks (Acts 9:29, 17:18-34), and Christ defended Himself with logic (John 10:37, 38).
There are in the modern day two broad schools of thought on Christian apologetics; there is the presuppositional system, which broadly fits under an Augustinian conception of a reason subordinate to faith, and the Thomistic system, which seeks a synthesis of faith and reason as equals operating in different spheres.
Classical Apologetics
Classical (or Thomistic) apologetics is the predominant system in the church currently. It traces its descent from St. Thomas Aquinas, a 12th century theologian and philosopher. He was heavily influenced by Aristotle’s works on logic and philosophy and sought to synthesize Aristotle’s works with the Scriptures and beliefs of orthodox Christianity. His method effectively dichotomizes faith and reason, assigning them different realms of responsibility. Faith is concerned with special revelation (that area of knowledge known and knowable only by immediate divine revelation, specifically in Holy Scripture), and reason with general revelation.
More relevantly, it generally holds that reason, just like the rest of man, has a propensity towards, but not a bondage to, sin and the denial of God. Man is still able to reach some amount of truth by means of his reason, though admittedly not enough for his salvation. Just as Aristotle was able to come to the right conclusion that God is one, is just, and is the source of all things, so, Thomists argue, man can come to the realization of some of God’s truths, and from these can a defense be made for the Christian system of belief, and possibly a foundation laid for faith itself. Thomists thus emphasize general revelation in their apologetic system and tend to reason from what they believe to be common ground held with their opponents.
Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositional (or Van Tillian) apologetics is a distinctively Reformed defense of the faith. It was first articulated by Cornelius Van Til, a conservative Reformed professor at Princeton and later Westminster Theological Seminary during the early 1900s. His apologetic system is self-consciously Calvinistic in its view of man and his reason, and God and His creation, and was forged against the backdrop of rationalism, idealism, and the beginnings of a pervasion of postmodern skepticism and nihilism in Western culture. Van Til articulated the idea that on the Christian epistemological foundation of faith, and only on this foundation, could man make sense of his existence and of his world. Thus faith—and not just any faith, but specifically that of Christian theism—was not only reasonable, it was also a prerequisite to all reason. Further, it was a prerequisite not only to good reason, but to any rationality. It is in this that presuppositionalism is revolutionary. Many others had articulated the idea that faith was reasonable, and also that faith was a necessary condition for good reason—Christian reason—but hitherto it had not been clearly articulated that all views except Christian theism were irrational and that Christian theism was a prerequisite for all rationality. In this, Van Til applied the doctrine of Total Depravity in positing that all unbelievers were irrational in part because their professed worldview was inconsistent, but ultimately because they were willfully suppressing their innate knowledge of God.
Presuppositionalism is also distinct in that it defends Christianity as a system: it does not start with the existence of God and then proceed from there to proving the Scriptures as inerrant and the atonement as rational. On the contrary, Van Til was concerned with defending all of Reformed orthodoxy and using the distinctives of Reformed orthodoxy as complements to his system. He realized that this was, in a sense, begging the question of authority, and he responded to this with the valid point that all appeals to authority must by their very nature beg the question of authority. What one must do, then, is to show the ultimate authority of unregenerate man to end in ultimate inconsistency. In the intramural debate between apologetic systems, he applied this in order to point out that if a Christian argued for the authority of the Bible on the basis of prime reason, then it was reason that was authoritative, not the Bible. If the Bible depends on anything other than itself to prove itself, then it does not speak with the authority that it claims for itself.
Presuppositionalism does not say that man cannot know some truth. It does say, and emphatically says, that unregenerate man cannot make sense of truth. For knowing truth divorced from its context and without foundation is hardly knowing truth at all, and is certainly an incoherent way to look at truth. He may grasp some principles that a Christian would agree are true, but the unbeliever has no way of knowing why these principles are true or how they should be applied unless he borrows from the Christian’s own absolutist worldview.
A Comparison of the Two Systems
Thomism has the advantage of antiquity and tradition behind it, and is not to be despised. After all, it was the system of choice for most of the church’s apologists and philosophers for about 800 years, whereas presuppositionalism has been articulated for about a tenth of that time. However, Thomism has many of the same problems that were resolved in the theological reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, and Van Til viewed himself as simply following the return to these Protestant doctrines to their logical conclusion when applied to apologetics. He considered himself to belong firmly in the same theological vein as Augustine and Calvin—indeed, in his Defense of the Faith, he defends himself as often from the Calvinistic creeds as directly from Scripture. In some ways, he thought that the Protestant Reformation, in reforming its theology, had neglected to reform its apologetics to fit its theology. It could be argued, indeed, that if Calvin had been a philosopher instead of a theologian, he may have agreed with Van Til that the existence of reason itself required the existence of God (Institutes of the Christian Religion I.5.4).
The chief and fundamental error of Thomism is in its concession of autonomy to man’s reason. Man tends to consider himself as rationally prime—if he is to trust anything, it must be because he considers it sensible. In essence, man sets himself up as his own god. Thomism concedes this in principle and tries to present man with proofs that are held in some supposed common ground. Some men may acknowledge this common ground, but if they are cross-examined, they will realize that they have no basis for any foundationalism at all, let alone a common ground with Christian philosophers. Presuppositionalism performs this cross-examination and tears the ground from under unbelievers by showing their inconsistencies in reason and even in attempting to reason.
Presuppositionalism has no quarrel with those who would use rational and empirical evidence to convince those willing to be convinced by those means. Their point, however, is precisely that there is no one naturally willing to be convinced. To the unbeliever, the evidence could conceivably point either way, so the choice is left to him, and it is perfectly rational for him to refuse. It is a matter of interpretation. Presuppositionalism recognizes this and attacks the unbeliever’s standards of proof and interpretation, showing them to have no basis in his own atheistic or skeptical philosophy, but that, to make sense of anything, he must submit his own interpretation to the One who has created the world and grants it meaning. Presuppositionalists take seriously and literally the idea that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom [some translations “knowledge].” (Proverbs 1:7) Without the fear of God, there is no wisdom and knowledge.
As a note, the Reformed doctrine of God’s exhaustive providence and presuppositional apologetics are complementary—for if anything can happen outside of God’s ordination, then there is an element of chance in the world which leaves all facts open to autonomous interpretation. If God has not preinterpreted an event and granted it meaning, then it has only and every meaning that any individual who sees it assigns to it. He could assign it to luck or determinism or free will, but that event does not necessarily point to God. It is, as Van Til put it, simply a “brute fact.” This is in direct contradiction to the Psalm which says “the heavens declare the glory of God” and the Proverb (16:4) which says that “The Lord hath made all things for His purposes, even the wicked for the day of destruction.”
Further, presuppositional apologetics, by its strict adherence to Sola Scriptura and its commitment to defending Christian doctrine as a system rather than piecemeal, can preserve the doctrine of providence over and against those who consider it to be unreasonable, both within and without the church. To those outside of the church, the presuppositional apologist will point out that by denying the incoherence of juxtaposing God’s providence with human responsibility, they are simply begging the question of authority. To those inside the church, the same could be said, but if a person accepts the truth of God as presented by a presuppositionalist, he could completely avoid the erroneous doctrine of autonomous will. With Scripture as his sole and sufficient source of authoritative truth, and reason subordinate to and founded upon Scripture, he would avoid the error of those who try to subject Scripture to reason. Thomism, on the other hand, opens the door to such aberrant doctrines by conceding to man’s reason the ability to know truth independently of context and authority. It is this basis (or lack thereof) that allows man to invent doctrines that make sense to him as a man and hold them as true. If reason is prime, then it is allowed to independently draw conclusions; and in more extreme cases, it will even subordinate Scripture to itself.
A Word of Caution
Presuppositionalism must be seen in its full context as a distinctively Reformed apologetic. As a corollary of Reformed doctrine, it can only be fairly criticized by those who keep these doctrines in mind as well. Specifically, some have decried Van Til’s system as presenting a “magic bullet” cure to the problem of unbelief when such is not the case at all, nor has it ever been represented as such by Van Til or any responsible student of his. Van Til, along with all historic Calvinists, believed firmly in God’s sovereignty over salvation and belief and unbelief. As such, he believed that no amount of rational proof, even the epistemological proof of his transcendental system, could finally change the unbeliever’s heart to the point that he would submit to the claims of Christ. Only the Holy Spirit could do this, and He is sovereign in His dispensation of the saving grace of regeneration and faith.
Also, Van Til’s system must be viewed against the backdrop not only of the prevalent rationalism and idealism of his time, but also against the rising postmodernist and nihilistic systems. In America and especially in the church and school where he taught (both of which when they finally liberalized, he left and helped form a conservative nucleus elsewhere with J. Gresham Machen), a wave of pluralism was rising. Classical apologetics could simply not compete with this, not because the evidence was faulty, but because completely different standards of interpretation were being used. Indeed, one may wonder if the shift of the Western mind from modern to postmodern did not spell the obsolescence of Classical apologetics. One thing is certain, that shift did spell the end of common methods of rational interpretation and common standards of authority that had, till then, been prevalent in Western intellectual culture.
Van Til’s system is, then, not only an application of Reformed theology to apologetics, but also an attempt to deal with the shifting intellectual atmosphere and to preserve an absolutely biblical way of engaging each of the exploding fragments of the Western intellectual culture. Further, in its ability to do this, it also remains helpful for Christians who are dealing with these questions and preserves confidence in the old institutions of Reformed orthodoxy. Most of all, though, it seeks to glorify God by holding His truth unsullied and absolute, just as it proclaims itself to be.
Conclusion
Despite the antiquity of the venerable Thomistic system, it preserves in its root the poison of Romanism manifest in the syncretism of paganism and Christianity. A fully Reformed apologetic requires the acknowledgement of God’s primacy in all. God has revealed Himself primarily through His apostles and prophets in the divinely inspired Scriptures, and it is to these, not abstract concepts of reason, that the Christian apologist must demand allegiance. The Christian apologist must realize himself and show to his debater that these “abstract concepts of reason” would have no existence at all were Christianity not true. This is the heart of presuppositionalism—that the fear of the Lord ought not be a conclusion to reasoned proofs, nor something dichotomized from reasoned proofs, but rather is and by right ought to be “the beginning of wisdom.” With Augustine, the presuppositionalist says “Credo ut intelligam”—I believe in order to understand.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Baptism in the Spirit, Filling in the Spirit, and a Consideration of Variant Views on the Doctrine of Glossolalia as It Relates to the Preceding
By Colin Cutler
Term Paper for
BIB140DL
Theology of the Bible II (Dr. Martin Erdmann)
16 April 2007
Introduction and Thesis
This paper will explore the Biblical texts concerning baptism in and filling with the Holy Spirit, define both, and discuss the Pentecostal view of baptism in the Holy Spirit. The position advocated herein is distinct from the Pentecostal view, but does affirm the continuation of the miraculous gifts (i.e., glossolalia, interpretation, prophecy), so will also interact with the cessationist view of miraculous gifts.
Prophecies and Fulfillment of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was prophesied in both the Old and the New Testaments. The prophet Joel gave the Word of God, saying “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions” (Joel 2:28-30). In the New Testament, John the Baptist also prophesied a future baptism of the Holy Spirit, proclaiming “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11; cf. Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33). Before ascending into heaven, Jesus commanded His disciples to remain “in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).
In Acts 1:4, 5, it is said that the disciples remained in the city as Jesus had commanded, waiting for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples, and “all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” Peter, when he addressed the multitude, said that this was not only a fulfillment of Christ’s command and promise, but also a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21).
What is Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is defined as that action of the Holy Spirit granting each regenerate Christian the gifts and power pertaining to him as part of the unified Body of Christ. Jesus said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit would give His followers “power from on high” (Luke 24:49); they were not to spread throughout the world until they had received this power.
The most exhaustive Biblical exposition of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is given in 1 Corinthians 12. Paul first outlines the gifts of the Holy Spirit and explaining that there are many different gifts given by the same Spirit for different uses in and the edification of the same Body. “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good…all these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and He gives them to each one, just as He determines.”
All regenerate Christians receive some gift and are baptized in the Holy Spirit: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13) Further, we are each given different gifts: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”
What is Filling in the Holy Spirit?
Filling in the Holy Spirit is defined as a special movement of the Holy Spirit empowering a person for a particular ministry or exercising a spiritual gift. It is related to, but distinct from, baptism in the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the impartation of spiritual gifts and is strictly a New Testament phenomenon, while the Holy Spirit fills a person in order for him to show supernatural power generally or to specifically exercise his gifts. There are several forms in the Bible: Old Testament empowerment for ministry, non-canonical prophecy, canonical inspiration, New Testament empowerment for ministry, and New Testament evidential empowerment.
Old Testament empowerment. In the Old Testament, it is frequently said that a servant of the Lord “was filled with the Holy Spirit” or that “the Holy Spirit came upon” him. The manifestation of this varied from case to case—similarly to the variant gifts of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament age—from the apparently mundane to the obviously supernatural.
Bezalel was filled with the Spirit of God that he might direct the building of the Tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-5, 35:30-35). The Spirit of God came upon the judges of Israel, empowering them to conquer the enemies of the Israelite nation; Othniel (Judges 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and Samson (14:6, 19, 15:14) all experienced this filling, which enabled them to lead incohesive armies against outnumbering forces, or even conquer great bands of enemies alone.
Likewise, Saul and David—the first kings of Israel—were “filled with the Holy Spirit” in order to accomplish works of God and to confirm their kingship. In 1 Samuel 11:6, the Bible says that “the Spirit of God came upon him in power…” and Saul proceeded to lead Israel against their enemies, defeating them and confirming the kingship the Lord had granted him. When David was anointed by Samuel, it is also said that “the Spirit came upon him.”
Non-canonical prophecy. Several times in the Old Testament books (as well as in some of the New Testament books, but before Christ’s death), the result of the filling of the Holy Spirit is a non-canonical prophecy. This is distinct from canonical inspiration, non-canonical prophecy either not being recorded in the canon or being recorded at second hand from an inspired writer; it is often used to encourage the people of God or give them direction.
The first recorded example of this is of the Israelite elders in the wilderness. “Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and He took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they did not do so again” (Numbers 11:24-29). Saul prophesied when the Holy Spirit came upon him; this was meant as a sign to confirm Samuel’s prophecy and Saul’s ordination to the kingship (1 Samuel 10:5-7, 9, 10). Amasai was also filled with the Holy Spirit and proclaimed “God will help you” to David as a proof of his loyalty when he wished to be one of David’s mighty men (1 Chronicles 12:18). Azariah gave a prophecy to King Asa which encouraged him to return himself and all of Israel to the service of the Lord (2 Chronicles 15:1-9), Jahaziel prophesied that God would conquer Israel’s enemies for her (2 Chronicles 20:14-17), and Zechariah prophesied punishment for Israel’s apostasy (2 Chronicles 24:20); in all these cases, it is said that “the Spirit of God came upon” the person.
There are also several cases in the New Testament recounting the Holy Spirit coming upon a person and inspiring a non-canonical prophecy. John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets, was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth (Luke 1:15), Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit and blessed Mary (1:41-45), and Zechariah was filled with the Spirit, prophesying about his son’s place in the preparation for the kingdom of God (1:67-79). Also, Simeon had the Holy Spirit upon him, by Whom it had been revealed to him that “he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ,” and by Whom he was guided in order to see Jesus in the temple (2:25-32).
Inspiration of Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired Holy Scripture. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Ezekiel for his prophecy against Israel in Ezekiel 11:5-12. Micah 3:8 explains that the prophet is “filled with power, with the Spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin.”
Besides Ezekiel’s and Micah’s examples, it is also apparent from New Testament teaching that the biblical canon is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul writes to Timothy that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16). The apostle Peter also writes concerning the prophets “above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20, 21).
It could be argued that there should not be two classes of prophecy. This distinction, however, will be maintained on several grounds. The chief distinction is that “non-canonical” prophecies, though truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, were meant for a specific case with specific circumstances, and do not compose an authoritative address to all men at all times.
The second distinction is chiefly applicable to the New Testament age. When messages claiming to be prophecies are given, they must be subject to Scripture. The canon is closed, having been built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20); there is no entirely new revelation for the Christian church, for the prophets and apostles are no longer on earth. The author of Hebrews says “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed heir of all things, and through Whom He made the universe…we must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away” (Hebrews 1:1, 2, 2:1). “What we have heard,” of course, is the doctrine and witness of the apostles, who had heard the words of Jesus and remembered them by the Holy Spirit (John 4:26; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). So, whereas inspired Scripture is supremely authoritative, messages must be subject to Scripture in order to be accepted as prophecies (cf. 2 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1).
New Testament Empowerment. Throughout the book of Acts, there are several places where it is said that a Christian was “filled with the Spirit” in order to further his activity for God. The first is at Pentecost, when the disciples in the upper room were baptized in the Spirit, and “were filled with the Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4). Soon after, when Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin, the Holy Spirit filled Peter, giving him the words to defend the truth of God (Acts 4:8; cf. Luke 12:11, 12). After being released, they returned to the other disciples and prayed, after which they were again “filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly” (4:31).
After Saul was struck down on the Damascus road, God sent Ananias to him that Saul might receive a filling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:15-17). The Holy Spirit filled Paul at another time, giving him the authority to rebuke Elymas the sorcerer, even calling him a child of the devil (Acts 13:9; cf. Jude 9). The disciples of God were all filled with the Holy Spirit at the spreading of the Word of God and the opportunity to suffer persecution for Christ’s sake (Acts 13:49-52; cf. James 1:2), though the exact manifestation of this particular case is not stated.
New Testament Evidential Empowerment. The first occurrences of the baptism in the Holy Spirit were also accompanied by an immediate filling in the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in other languages. In Acts 2:4, “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues.” When Peter witnessed to the Gentiles of Cornelius’ household, “the Holy Spirit came on all who had heard the message. The circumcised believers who had gone with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.” (Acts 10:44-46). Likewise, the Ephesian believers had been baptized into John’s baptism, but had not received the Holy Spirit, nor indeed knew of the Holy Spirit. After Paul baptized them in the name of Christ, “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-6).
In all three of these cases, it is certain that this speaking in other languages was a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit, and thus a sign that they should be accepted as part of the body of Christ. After Cornelius’s household began speaking in tongues, Peter exclaimed, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47). This sign was necessary to convince the other believers to “not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15; cf. 45-47 and 11:15-18), answering finally the question of whether or not the Gentiles were properly part of the church. Similarly, the believers at Ephesus had only been baptized by John the Baptist. They had not heard of the Holy Spirit, and it is possible that they did not know that the Messiah had come; when they were baptized into Christ, however, they were also baptized and filled with the Spirit.
Several Contrasting Views
Contra Pentecostalism. There is a significant movement in the Christian church, known as Pentecostalism, which advocates the view that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second experience completely distinct from salvation, and not necessarily received as part of the process of sanctification. Further, it is held that the sign of this baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, based on the example of the disciples at Pentecost.
There are several objections to this. First, baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be completely separated from salvation, for Paul emphasizes the unity of the body of Christ and the plurality of gifts distributed within it when he writes “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one Body…” (1 Corinthians 12:12, 13). John the Baptist clearly delineates a dichotomy between baptism in the Spirit and baptism by fire in Matthew 3:11, 12: “…He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor, gathering His wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” John is here addressing both believers (present and future), who will be baptized “with the Holy Spirit,” and unbelievers, who will be baptized “with fire.” Given the biblical dichotomy of good and evil, believers and unbelievers, it follows that all who are not baptized in the Spirit will be baptized in fire—and that all who will not be baptized in fire are baptized in the Spirit. Therefore, those who are “baptized in the Spirit” cannot be distinguished from those who are saved; the classes comprise the same persons.
Their assertion that speaking in tongues is the necessary evidence of baptism is also faulty: “Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” (1 Corinthians 12:30). What, then, of the experience at Pentecost, and the “speaking in tongues” of the Ephesians and Cornelius’s family? First, though Pentecost was indeed the time at which the Holy Spirit was poured out on believers, and they were baptized in Him, the baptism itself was not the immediate cause of their glossolalia. It says in the passage on Pentecost (and in the others), that “they were filled with the Spirit.” The filling was the immediate cause of their speaking in tongues—not their baptism. And from the other examples shown above, both Old and New Testament, it is apparent that neither the baptism in nor the filling with the Holy Spirit is bound to result in glossolalia; the Holy Spirit works for His sovereign purposes, and He uses different tools for these purposes. It is best to understand these cases as needful evidences to resolve certain controversies in the early church and the surrounding culture.
One need not wonder if one is simply “not holy enough” to speak in tongues, which can lead to legalism and a supercilious attitude for those who do speak in tongues, and morbid introspection for those who don’t. Paul says that not all will speak in tongues; this is normal. Further, Paul commands the Corinthians to “eagerly desire the greater gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31)—speaking in tongues is the last of the gifts. We are to “try to excel in gifts that build up the church…you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified” (1 Cor. 14:12, 17).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the Pentecostal doctrines of “prayer languages,” and their distinction between this and the “gift of tongues” (the former which they assert can be exercised by all, the latter only by those who have been given the gift). However, it is the position advocated in this paper, that despite the Pentecostal misapplication of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the miraculous gifts such as glossolalia and prophecy are continued to the present day, though only as the Holy Spirit gifts individuals.
Contra Cessationism. There is another widespread belief that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ended with the apostolic age, based on 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 2:20. The first says that “where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” The Ephesians passage asserts that the church’s foundation is on the testimony of the apostles and prophets.
The Ephesians passage is no obstacle to a continuationist view, so long as prophecy and tongues are understood to not be new revelation and to be subordinate to Scripture, as stated above. Obviously, prophecy exactly parallel to or based upon Scripture can be readily accepted, a message contradictory to Scripture must be discarded—for it is not truly prophecy at all—and prophecy with an indeterminate basis should be judged by the same standards as in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: “‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”
Nor does the 1 Corinthians passage necessarily imply cessationism. The “imperfect” refers back to the gifts, but “the perfect” refers to when “we shall see face to face” (v. 12). This cannot be the closing of the canon: though the completion of the canon is a completion of authority for the church, it is not itself “the perfect”—it points us to the perfect, but we are still living by faith, waiting for the completion of God’s plan for the world and the resulting perfection (cf. Hebrews 11:13-16). In the meantime, God has given us the gifts of the Holy Spirit to empower us to effectively spread His gospel throughout the world, and we are to use them within Scriptural bounds.
Conclusion
The baptism in the Holy Spirit is a privilege bestowed upon believers in order that we may spread God’s word and edify the church. It is given to all believers and does not necessitate speaking in tongues—on the other hand, miraculous gifts are just as much a part of the church now as they were in the apostolic age. We would do well to heed Paul’s admonition regarding the use of the gifts bestowed in baptism: “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”
Term Paper for
BIB140DL
Theology of the Bible II (Dr. Martin Erdmann)
16 April 2007
Introduction and Thesis
This paper will explore the Biblical texts concerning baptism in and filling with the Holy Spirit, define both, and discuss the Pentecostal view of baptism in the Holy Spirit. The position advocated herein is distinct from the Pentecostal view, but does affirm the continuation of the miraculous gifts (i.e., glossolalia, interpretation, prophecy), so will also interact with the cessationist view of miraculous gifts.
Prophecies and Fulfillment of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was prophesied in both the Old and the New Testaments. The prophet Joel gave the Word of God, saying “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions” (Joel 2:28-30). In the New Testament, John the Baptist also prophesied a future baptism of the Holy Spirit, proclaiming “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11; cf. Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33). Before ascending into heaven, Jesus commanded His disciples to remain “in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).
In Acts 1:4, 5, it is said that the disciples remained in the city as Jesus had commanded, waiting for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples, and “all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” Peter, when he addressed the multitude, said that this was not only a fulfillment of Christ’s command and promise, but also a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21).
What is Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is defined as that action of the Holy Spirit granting each regenerate Christian the gifts and power pertaining to him as part of the unified Body of Christ. Jesus said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit would give His followers “power from on high” (Luke 24:49); they were not to spread throughout the world until they had received this power.
The most exhaustive Biblical exposition of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is given in 1 Corinthians 12. Paul first outlines the gifts of the Holy Spirit and explaining that there are many different gifts given by the same Spirit for different uses in and the edification of the same Body. “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good…all these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and He gives them to each one, just as He determines.”
All regenerate Christians receive some gift and are baptized in the Holy Spirit: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13) Further, we are each given different gifts: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”
What is Filling in the Holy Spirit?
Filling in the Holy Spirit is defined as a special movement of the Holy Spirit empowering a person for a particular ministry or exercising a spiritual gift. It is related to, but distinct from, baptism in the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the impartation of spiritual gifts and is strictly a New Testament phenomenon, while the Holy Spirit fills a person in order for him to show supernatural power generally or to specifically exercise his gifts. There are several forms in the Bible: Old Testament empowerment for ministry, non-canonical prophecy, canonical inspiration, New Testament empowerment for ministry, and New Testament evidential empowerment.
Old Testament empowerment. In the Old Testament, it is frequently said that a servant of the Lord “was filled with the Holy Spirit” or that “the Holy Spirit came upon” him. The manifestation of this varied from case to case—similarly to the variant gifts of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament age—from the apparently mundane to the obviously supernatural.
Bezalel was filled with the Spirit of God that he might direct the building of the Tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-5, 35:30-35). The Spirit of God came upon the judges of Israel, empowering them to conquer the enemies of the Israelite nation; Othniel (Judges 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and Samson (14:6, 19, 15:14) all experienced this filling, which enabled them to lead incohesive armies against outnumbering forces, or even conquer great bands of enemies alone.
Likewise, Saul and David—the first kings of Israel—were “filled with the Holy Spirit” in order to accomplish works of God and to confirm their kingship. In 1 Samuel 11:6, the Bible says that “the Spirit of God came upon him in power…” and Saul proceeded to lead Israel against their enemies, defeating them and confirming the kingship the Lord had granted him. When David was anointed by Samuel, it is also said that “the Spirit came upon him.”
Non-canonical prophecy. Several times in the Old Testament books (as well as in some of the New Testament books, but before Christ’s death), the result of the filling of the Holy Spirit is a non-canonical prophecy. This is distinct from canonical inspiration, non-canonical prophecy either not being recorded in the canon or being recorded at second hand from an inspired writer; it is often used to encourage the people of God or give them direction.
The first recorded example of this is of the Israelite elders in the wilderness. “Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and He took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they did not do so again” (Numbers 11:24-29). Saul prophesied when the Holy Spirit came upon him; this was meant as a sign to confirm Samuel’s prophecy and Saul’s ordination to the kingship (1 Samuel 10:5-7, 9, 10). Amasai was also filled with the Holy Spirit and proclaimed “God will help you” to David as a proof of his loyalty when he wished to be one of David’s mighty men (1 Chronicles 12:18). Azariah gave a prophecy to King Asa which encouraged him to return himself and all of Israel to the service of the Lord (2 Chronicles 15:1-9), Jahaziel prophesied that God would conquer Israel’s enemies for her (2 Chronicles 20:14-17), and Zechariah prophesied punishment for Israel’s apostasy (2 Chronicles 24:20); in all these cases, it is said that “the Spirit of God came upon” the person.
There are also several cases in the New Testament recounting the Holy Spirit coming upon a person and inspiring a non-canonical prophecy. John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets, was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth (Luke 1:15), Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit and blessed Mary (1:41-45), and Zechariah was filled with the Spirit, prophesying about his son’s place in the preparation for the kingdom of God (1:67-79). Also, Simeon had the Holy Spirit upon him, by Whom it had been revealed to him that “he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ,” and by Whom he was guided in order to see Jesus in the temple (2:25-32).
Inspiration of Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired Holy Scripture. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Ezekiel for his prophecy against Israel in Ezekiel 11:5-12. Micah 3:8 explains that the prophet is “filled with power, with the Spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin.”
Besides Ezekiel’s and Micah’s examples, it is also apparent from New Testament teaching that the biblical canon is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul writes to Timothy that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16). The apostle Peter also writes concerning the prophets “above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20, 21).
It could be argued that there should not be two classes of prophecy. This distinction, however, will be maintained on several grounds. The chief distinction is that “non-canonical” prophecies, though truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, were meant for a specific case with specific circumstances, and do not compose an authoritative address to all men at all times.
The second distinction is chiefly applicable to the New Testament age. When messages claiming to be prophecies are given, they must be subject to Scripture. The canon is closed, having been built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20); there is no entirely new revelation for the Christian church, for the prophets and apostles are no longer on earth. The author of Hebrews says “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed heir of all things, and through Whom He made the universe…we must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away” (Hebrews 1:1, 2, 2:1). “What we have heard,” of course, is the doctrine and witness of the apostles, who had heard the words of Jesus and remembered them by the Holy Spirit (John 4:26; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). So, whereas inspired Scripture is supremely authoritative, messages must be subject to Scripture in order to be accepted as prophecies (cf. 2 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1).
New Testament Empowerment. Throughout the book of Acts, there are several places where it is said that a Christian was “filled with the Spirit” in order to further his activity for God. The first is at Pentecost, when the disciples in the upper room were baptized in the Spirit, and “were filled with the Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4). Soon after, when Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin, the Holy Spirit filled Peter, giving him the words to defend the truth of God (Acts 4:8; cf. Luke 12:11, 12). After being released, they returned to the other disciples and prayed, after which they were again “filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly” (4:31).
After Saul was struck down on the Damascus road, God sent Ananias to him that Saul might receive a filling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:15-17). The Holy Spirit filled Paul at another time, giving him the authority to rebuke Elymas the sorcerer, even calling him a child of the devil (Acts 13:9; cf. Jude 9). The disciples of God were all filled with the Holy Spirit at the spreading of the Word of God and the opportunity to suffer persecution for Christ’s sake (Acts 13:49-52; cf. James 1:2), though the exact manifestation of this particular case is not stated.
New Testament Evidential Empowerment. The first occurrences of the baptism in the Holy Spirit were also accompanied by an immediate filling in the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in other languages. In Acts 2:4, “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues.” When Peter witnessed to the Gentiles of Cornelius’ household, “the Holy Spirit came on all who had heard the message. The circumcised believers who had gone with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.” (Acts 10:44-46). Likewise, the Ephesian believers had been baptized into John’s baptism, but had not received the Holy Spirit, nor indeed knew of the Holy Spirit. After Paul baptized them in the name of Christ, “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-6).
In all three of these cases, it is certain that this speaking in other languages was a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit, and thus a sign that they should be accepted as part of the body of Christ. After Cornelius’s household began speaking in tongues, Peter exclaimed, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47). This sign was necessary to convince the other believers to “not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15; cf. 45-47 and 11:15-18), answering finally the question of whether or not the Gentiles were properly part of the church. Similarly, the believers at Ephesus had only been baptized by John the Baptist. They had not heard of the Holy Spirit, and it is possible that they did not know that the Messiah had come; when they were baptized into Christ, however, they were also baptized and filled with the Spirit.
Several Contrasting Views
Contra Pentecostalism. There is a significant movement in the Christian church, known as Pentecostalism, which advocates the view that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second experience completely distinct from salvation, and not necessarily received as part of the process of sanctification. Further, it is held that the sign of this baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, based on the example of the disciples at Pentecost.
There are several objections to this. First, baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be completely separated from salvation, for Paul emphasizes the unity of the body of Christ and the plurality of gifts distributed within it when he writes “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one Body…” (1 Corinthians 12:12, 13). John the Baptist clearly delineates a dichotomy between baptism in the Spirit and baptism by fire in Matthew 3:11, 12: “…He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor, gathering His wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” John is here addressing both believers (present and future), who will be baptized “with the Holy Spirit,” and unbelievers, who will be baptized “with fire.” Given the biblical dichotomy of good and evil, believers and unbelievers, it follows that all who are not baptized in the Spirit will be baptized in fire—and that all who will not be baptized in fire are baptized in the Spirit. Therefore, those who are “baptized in the Spirit” cannot be distinguished from those who are saved; the classes comprise the same persons.
Their assertion that speaking in tongues is the necessary evidence of baptism is also faulty: “Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” (1 Corinthians 12:30). What, then, of the experience at Pentecost, and the “speaking in tongues” of the Ephesians and Cornelius’s family? First, though Pentecost was indeed the time at which the Holy Spirit was poured out on believers, and they were baptized in Him, the baptism itself was not the immediate cause of their glossolalia. It says in the passage on Pentecost (and in the others), that “they were filled with the Spirit.” The filling was the immediate cause of their speaking in tongues—not their baptism. And from the other examples shown above, both Old and New Testament, it is apparent that neither the baptism in nor the filling with the Holy Spirit is bound to result in glossolalia; the Holy Spirit works for His sovereign purposes, and He uses different tools for these purposes. It is best to understand these cases as needful evidences to resolve certain controversies in the early church and the surrounding culture.
One need not wonder if one is simply “not holy enough” to speak in tongues, which can lead to legalism and a supercilious attitude for those who do speak in tongues, and morbid introspection for those who don’t. Paul says that not all will speak in tongues; this is normal. Further, Paul commands the Corinthians to “eagerly desire the greater gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31)—speaking in tongues is the last of the gifts. We are to “try to excel in gifts that build up the church…you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified” (1 Cor. 14:12, 17).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the Pentecostal doctrines of “prayer languages,” and their distinction between this and the “gift of tongues” (the former which they assert can be exercised by all, the latter only by those who have been given the gift). However, it is the position advocated in this paper, that despite the Pentecostal misapplication of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the miraculous gifts such as glossolalia and prophecy are continued to the present day, though only as the Holy Spirit gifts individuals.
Contra Cessationism. There is another widespread belief that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ended with the apostolic age, based on 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 2:20. The first says that “where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” The Ephesians passage asserts that the church’s foundation is on the testimony of the apostles and prophets.
The Ephesians passage is no obstacle to a continuationist view, so long as prophecy and tongues are understood to not be new revelation and to be subordinate to Scripture, as stated above. Obviously, prophecy exactly parallel to or based upon Scripture can be readily accepted, a message contradictory to Scripture must be discarded—for it is not truly prophecy at all—and prophecy with an indeterminate basis should be judged by the same standards as in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: “‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”
Nor does the 1 Corinthians passage necessarily imply cessationism. The “imperfect” refers back to the gifts, but “the perfect” refers to when “we shall see face to face” (v. 12). This cannot be the closing of the canon: though the completion of the canon is a completion of authority for the church, it is not itself “the perfect”—it points us to the perfect, but we are still living by faith, waiting for the completion of God’s plan for the world and the resulting perfection (cf. Hebrews 11:13-16). In the meantime, God has given us the gifts of the Holy Spirit to empower us to effectively spread His gospel throughout the world, and we are to use them within Scriptural bounds.
Conclusion
The baptism in the Holy Spirit is a privilege bestowed upon believers in order that we may spread God’s word and edify the church. It is given to all believers and does not necessitate speaking in tongues—on the other hand, miraculous gifts are just as much a part of the church now as they were in the apostolic age. We would do well to heed Paul’s admonition regarding the use of the gifts bestowed in baptism: “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
