The Charismatic Movement: Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Part 1)

 

The Charismatic Movement also known as Pentecostalism is one of the most popular and rapidly growing movements within Christianity. It's impact resonates throughout the Caribbean, the US, Asia and even Africa and certainly within the Cayman Islands. Denominations like Church of God and First Assembly of God and others, have and do communicate doctrinal distinctives of the Charismatic movement - such as baptism in the Holy Spirit; while there are many non-denominations which may not distinguish by name, certain doctrines, but do practice and hold firmly to them just the same. Other major doctrine distinctives are tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing, with the emphasis on having a personal experience. Because we have seen growth and popularity with various cults (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons) and false religions (e.g. Islam, Buddhism), growth and popularity cannot be used as points of reference for measuring truth. The scriptures will be our "measuring stick", our litmus test (if you will), as we test the spirit from which these teachings, and in some cases, abuses of biblical truths, were conjured (1Jn. 4:1). The Charismatic movement is a twentieth century phenomenon; with no finger prints dating it, in the 19 centuries of Christendom before it. What we do know and I hope to show, starting with "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is that there are teachings and practices at the core of the Charismatic movement that differ from what orthodox Christians believe, and the bible from which their teachings and beliefs derive. Then there are cases of mishandling of certain biblical truths. Besides the obvious doctrinal pit-falls, we'll also delve into the danger of the misrepresentation of the Holy Spirit, his nature and role, both in salvation and in the everyday life of the believer and communicably as a church. It is important to say at this point, what I'm not saying - I'm not saying that all Charismatics are not Christian; nor am I expressing any dislike for Charismatics by scrutinizing their distinctives. I myself  have been apart of churches which hold these beliefs and have people I love dearly who are still Charismatics, and I'm sure, if you're like me, struggle with how to communicate the truth of the scripture with them concerning topics such as these. I hope this critique will encourage us all to "hold firm to the trustworthy word" (Tit 1:9), and that the bonds of love will be fortified as a result. The bible is the authority that governs our faith and practice. Our feelings, impressions and experiences must be taken captive and made obedient to Christ and his teachings.

What is Baptism in the Holy Spirit?

Here are a few facts to help define and understand the doctrine:

• Baptism in the Holy Spirit is regarded as an experience that usually happens after conversion.
•  Most Charismatics would say that at conversion a Christian receives the Holy Spirit; however the Holy Spirit is received in full for empowerment in Christian service upon baptism in the Holy Spirit.
• Many but not all Charismatics believe that "Spirit baptism" is always accompanied by the gift of speaking in tongues, as evidence of Spirit baptism.
• Spirit baptism is considered a "second work of grace." In other words, one can be a genuine Christian, yet not be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion is bedrock of Pentecostal theology.

Pentecost: A One Time Event

Does the Bible teach that every Christian should seek Spirit baptism? Or does the Bible teach that the outpouring of the Spirit was a historical event; a crucial aspect of salvation history (like the (resurrection and ascension); a once and for all event, and subsequently non-repeatable?

Pentecost marked the birth of the Christian church, therefore Pentecost can never be repeated, and more importantly, does not need to be repeated. Here are some reasons why Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event:

• Pentecost is a fulfilment of Joel 2:28-32. A fulfilment of a prophecy, signals the completion of said prophecy.
• Jesus said that the Spirit would be poured out after his ascension, "it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." Also said of Jesus "for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (Jn. 7:39). Also said of Christ, by John the Baptist "this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (Jn. 1:33, Mk. 1:7-8, Lk. 3:16).
• In Acts 2:33 "Being exalted" and "having received" and "poured out" are all in aorist tense. In other words Peter explains that Christ's exaltation, receiving of the Holy Spirit and the outpouring upon the disciples is what led to what his audience were "seeing and hearing."
• Scripture makes it clear that believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit are simultaneous (Acts 10:34-48, Eph. 1:13). Peter equates the Gentiles baptism in the Spirit with their salvation, as he commanded them be baptized in the name of the Lord.

The proper rendering of literary forms and devices found in the scripture like (didactic, historical, apocalyptic, hyperbole etc.) can be the "achilles heel" to proper interpretation and subsequent application. I feel this (or lack thereof) contributes to the miss-applying of passages like those in Acts, which are used by Charismatics to substantiate their position. Let us be sober, it is not lack of clarity in the scriptures themselves that is the issue, but a presupposition originating outside the scriptures, that is blurring what is clear.

What About Acts 19:1-7 & Acts 8:14-17?

Acts 19:1-7

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. ² And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” ³ And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” ⁴ And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” ⁵ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶ And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. ⁷ There were about twelve men in all. ESV

It is proposed that Charismatic founders working of a faulty interpretation (or translation) of the King James Version which read  "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed"(Acts 19:2). The New King James Version as well as the ESV (English Standard Version) as well as the NIV rightly translates Acts 19:2 “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” What troubles me, is even if the translation caused the architects of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, to venture in the direction they did 1) Why hadn't it happen before with other readers? 2) What about the rest of the text? Where the men had neither heard of Holy Spirit or Jesus for that matter. Further, Paul in his question to the twelve assumes the most condemning proof against the doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit or a second work of grace after salvation. That believing and Spirit baptism occur at the same time.

Acts 8:14-17

¹⁴ Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, ¹⁵ who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, ¹⁶ for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ¹⁷ Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. ESV

Does this passage show that the Samaritans received the Spirit after believing in Christ? Yes, it does. In this unique case God sovereignly withheld the seal of the Holy Spirit until apostles arrived to lay hands on them. There are a few reasons for this:

• Philip was not an apostle and with Peter and John confirmation there would be no question that the new covenant had visited the Samaritans the same way it had visited the Jews.
• This would also guarantee that the Samaritans would not form a separate Christian church, but be fully accepted into the new church alongside Jewish Christians.
• With that act, reconciliation where there once was hostility between Samaritans and Jews would be eradicated. For they would exist under one faith. And Samaritans shared in the same blessings and enjoyed full membership in the household of God.

Reasons why this passage does not support baptism in the Holy Spirit/second work of grace:

• Philip did not instruct those he preached and baptized in the Christ's name to pray and seek a second baptism.
• If we are to interpret this passage under the guise of the Charismatic doctrine. It would mean that modern day believers would have to (after hearing the gospel and believing) wait for an apostle to lay hands on them, so they would receive the Spirit. There is just one problem, the last apostle died 1900 years ago.
• We do not see this method of conversion being taught as the norm in the epistles.

To substantiate baptism in the Holy Spirit through Acts is far fetched at worst; and teaches us to make historical or mutant events, normative, at best. Whatever the case, it is, as we've seen so far, biblically unsubstantiated. 

I pray this was helpful to you. In part two we'll continue to look at what the bible teaches us about conversion and the Spirit of God. We'll also look at the individual as well as corperate effects of this doctrine. And explore it's history, origin and founders.

HT:Brian Schwertley - The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique