Baptism of the Spirit: Twice, Once, or Never?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonathonHunt

Guest
I am a cessationist, and reject the charismatic teaching that there is a 'second baptism' of the Holy Spirit which comes at some point after Christian conversion.

However, I do believe that the Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit at conversion. I am not alone in this.

I was suprised the other day to run across a review of a book by my former Pastor, Dr Peter Masters, on 'The Discerning Reader' website. The book was entitled 'Only One Baptism of the Holy Spirit'. The reviewer stated that the book was a waste of time as: QUOTE

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit belongs to the "historia-salutis" - the history of salvation; it isn't something universally experienced at all. As with all the components of the work of Christ - the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, judgment. These are REDEMPTIVE-HISTORICAL events that cannot be repeated. The people who experience them first-hand are unique individuals who have the rare privilege of personally participating in the work of God.

Becoming a Christian joins one to the body of Christ. When that body was formed, at Pentecost, it was formed by the pouring out/Baptizing of the Holy Spirit. The only future "baptism" of this kind - post-Pentecost - is the baptism of fire at the day of judgment.

UNQUOTE

This is new to me. Forgive me if I'm totally ignorant or something, but I have never met a single believer here in the UK with this view. Is it widely held? Who holds it?

I'd be grateful for any pointers.




PS. its a shame that The Discerning Reader.com has picked up on this one book to disagree with, and doesn't contain any other books by Dr Masters which it WOULD agree with!

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]
 
J

JonathonHunt

Guest
I appreciate the former threads, however I don't think they answer my question.

I am getting very confused having read the threads!

I wanted to know how commonly held the view was that the Baptism of The Spirit is a purely historical event.

Am I being tripped up by terminology? Is there a distinction being made between Baptism of the Spirit and Indwelling of the Spirit? I would view the two terms as meaning the same thing...

If this really is all answered elsewhere, then my apologies!!
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
I read something on the previous thread about a theologian(s) who thought the baptism of the Spirit is synonymous with regeneration. This is wrong, but is there anybody who thought this throughout history? I think Boice was mentioned, but found nothing of the nature in his works (yet).
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
You are going to be confused between threads because you have different theological views coming out depending on who you talk to.

According to the Reformers and the Puritans, this was their view:

When you are converted you are filled with the Holy Spirit.
What does it mean, then, to be "baptized" by the Holy Spirit?
To be baptized by the holy Spirit is to be filled with the Holy Spirit in service to Gospel Preaching. (i.e. that AFTER Christ's resurrection, He now sends the Holy Spirit to empower preachers and Christians to witness to the world via the Gospel message that has been completed.

Abraham had as much of the Spirit as we do, but, the modus operandi of the Spirit shifted to the Christ, rather than simply from the Father and the Son. Noah, Moses, and every other saint in the OT were not "less empowered" than we are today. They were not "less saved" or less "Spirit Filled."

Rembrandt said above that it is wrong to look at being baptized in the Spirit (i.e. filled with Him) as NOT synonymous with regeneration. THIS is wrong.

Since Christ is exalted, the Spirit bears witness of that historical event by his baptizing. That does not mean he has not baptized or filled believers previously. However, the outward pouring in scope to Jews and Gentiles alike demonstrate the widening of the scope of redemptive history in grafting int he Gentiles. Since Christ is exalted, the Spirit is now said to be sent on behalf of Him. And Christ did not previously exist, or was not previously enthroned prior to his ascension in this way. This is an important distinction between the Son and the humanity of the Anointed One now enthroned on high and given authrity to send the Spirit.

Calvin expresses these sentiments EXACTLY when he says,

"When John says, "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39), I should like to know what is the force of the substantive verb? If the rule of our opponents is rigidly observed, [b:8423dd8798]the eternal essence of the Spirit will be destroyed, as if he had only begun to be after the ascension of Christ.[/b:8423dd8798] Let them tell me, in fine, what is meant by the declaration of Paul, that baptism is "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5); though it is certain that to many it was of no use."

The Sporadic nature of the outporuing of the Holy Spirit in the OT is not the fulfillment of prophecy, whereas when the one who sends the Spirit under the Gospel (i.e. the Christ) sends him to a greater extent and greater people.

It shoudl be remembered that Acts 2 is set in the context of a restoration passage of the Jews, an ingathering and fulfilled promise.

Owen echoes these same sentiments in "communion with God" under his section on the HS.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by webmaster]
 
J

Jenson

Guest
Hi!

Firstly I wouldn't bother with a website like "The Discerning Reader". I had bought a book once from TDR and it took almost 6 months before it arrive. I even had to inform my bank because TDR had taken money out of my credit card without sending me the product.

Apart from that complaint, his view on the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is novel. With pentecostalists and reformed people alike, I would think that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is not a one-off event at Pentecost, but occurs for every one who is converted through' out the Gospel age. The difference between the reformed camp and the pentacostalists is whether that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is a post-conversion
event.

The first mention of this "baptism" (John 1:33, Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16) was to separate the godly Jews from the ungodly, a form of judgment. John 1:33 was quoted and linked by the Lord to Pentecost in Acts 1:5, not in judgment but for the large scale entrance of Gentiles into His kingdom. Peter confirmed this for us (when he cited the same phrase) in Acts 11:16 after
the conversion of Cornelius, a Gentile. Thankfully for us, Paul explained this in 1 Cor 12:13 ("For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body...")

So this does not sound like "historia-salutis", right? Any comments?

Sincerely,
Jenson
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
So then, you say that the Spirit fills, gifts for ministry etc. a vessel who has not yet been imputed Christ's righteousness, and therefore is still deamed a sinner in the sight of God?

Who are some other theologians who thought this? Did Calvin say anything else on the matter?

Rembrandt
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
R -

[quote:f480c5d247]
So then, you say that the Spirit fills, gifts for ministry etc. a vessel who has not yet been imputed Christ's righteousness, and therefore is still deamed a sinner in the sight of God?
[/quote:f480c5d247]

Of course not. How did you get that out of my post?

You had said,

[quote:f480c5d247]
I read something on the previous thread about a theologian(s) who thought the baptism of the Spirit is synonymous with regeneration. This is wrong,
[/quote:f480c5d247]

To equate the baptism in the Spirit and regeneration is not wrong. That was what I was getting at.

Did I miss something? We are NOT talking about unsaved people at all here correct? If you ask me if an unsaved person can be baptized in the Spirit, I would say that is a contradiction in terms. It can't happen and it is semantically wrong. People with the Spirit are regenerate. People without the Spirit are lost.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by webmaster]
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
If regeneration happens before justification (logically or temporally), then a person is baptized with the Spirit before (logically or temporally) justification. Which means that it is before they have been imputed Christ's righteousness, and they are still deemed a sinner in the sight of God, because he has not yet declared them righteous.

can you provide any more theologians who hold to that idea with references (if possible)?

Rembrandt
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
The ordo salutis should be enough. It may be easier to ask who does not believe this.

What has the imputation of righteous and the baptism of the Spirit have in logical order that makes this disturbing to you?

John the baptist was filled with the Spirit (batpized) from his mothers womb. At that time he did nto have active faith, which means he had not been "justified by faith alone" until later on. Do you see a problem, then, with the text when it says John had the Spirit before he "officially" had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him?
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
whoa whoa whoa, where in Scripture does it say that John was filled with the Spirit while he was in the womb? Are you suggesting that John, a sinner like the rest of us, was never totally depraved or a child of wrath, until the kindness and love of Jesus Christ appeard?

Rembrandt
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
thinking... doing some reading, and it seems that the Reformed seem to not give the filling/baptism much attention. Perhaps because the mystical union is just assumed... this is kinda hazy along the lines of regeneration. But I still think that regeneration is a distinctive work of the Spirit (not to be confused with Baptism)... its kinda hard to prove either way using the texts that speak of it...

Looking at Rom. 6:1-4... when does this occur: dying and rising with Christ? This seems to be speaking of regeneration(don't know though). So perhaps I could be wrong. But if that be the case, the timing of the baptism of the Spirit must be left ambiguous.

...still thinking...

Rembrandt
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:48f7170b9b]Union with Christ begins with God's pretemporal decision to save his people in and through Jesus Christ. This union, further, is based on the redemptive work for his people which Christ did in history. Finally, this union is actually established with God's people after they have been born, continues throughout their lives, and has as its goal their eternal glorification in the life to come. We go on, then, to see union with Christ as having its roots in divine election, its basis in the redemptive work of Christ, and its actual establishment with God's people in time.


Anthony Hoekema[/quote:48f7170b9b]

Can someone please explain what this man is talking about??

:puzzled::puzzled::puzzled::puzzled:

Rembrandt
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
I thnk what were gettingat is that when God regenerates you you are filled with the same spirit every beleiver has since the beggiining but the difference being how God uses his spirit through his saints.

ie. he would have some to be prophets,preachers,missionaires and so on.

The spirit hasnt changed nor how much you get.Just how God uses it in you.

blade
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
blade, that is almost exactly what I read a little while ago on thirdmill. http://www.thirdmill.org/qath_answer_main.asp/section/qa/subnav/th/file/99739.qna

I must say that I agree. This still however does not equate regeneration with the indwelling.

Anyways, here appears to be an article saying that regeneration is not the same as the indwelling. But I don't seem able to get to it though. "Regeneration And Indwelling In John" by James M. Hamilton Jr
http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/st-essay/regen-john.htm
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Rem,
Start here.......John was filled while yet in the womb. He was assuredly not yet converted as men must hear the gospel to be converted.



[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

BrianLanier

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:0b61a4e863][i:0b61a4e863]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0b61a4e863]
whoa whoa whoa, where in Scripture does it say that John was filled with the Spirit while he was in the womb? Are you suggesting that John, a sinner like the rest of us, was never totally depraved or a child of wrath, until the kindness and love of Jesus Christ appeard?
Rembrandt [/quote:0b61a4e863]


The answer:

13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be [b:0b61a4e863]filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.[/b:0b61a4e863]
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 1:13-15). Wheaton: Good News Publishers.

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by BrianLanier]
 

mybigGod

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Rem,
Start here.......John was filled while yet in the womb. He was assuredly not yet converted as men must hear the gospel to be converted.

Then if He was not counted as regenerated from his mothers womb then how do infants who die before the age of understanding inter heaven unless they are given new life upon death?


[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top