Jensen on Baptism of the Holy Spirit
I just watched Phillip Jensen answer “Have you been baptised by the Holy Spirit”.
It’s very good. And yet…
I can’t help but think his second ‘error’ is actually the plain teaching of Scripture. Of course, you cannot be Christian without the Spirit, what we are talking about here is whether you can have the Spirit – be Christian - without being Spirit-baptised.
I’ll explain this more below.
The disciples were Christian before they were Spirit-baptised:
“Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.” (John 15:3-4)
They are regenerate, they believe, Jesus has breathed on them and told them “Recieve the Holy Spirit”. Yet at Pentecost they are baptised in the Spirit.
Then we may come to Acts 8:
“12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
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.”
And note that the coming of the Spirit was so visibly evident that Simon SAW it and asked for the same power.
Or take Apollos (Acts 19):
He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately…”
And then as though to explain the difference between John’s baptism and Jesus’, the very next paragraph goes like this:
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.
They were disciples. Where else in the New Testament are disciples not Christian? Yet these Christians were subsequently baptised in the Spirit.
What’s more, Paul’s very question, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”, shows you can believe without being Spirit-baptised.
Another approach is to ask whether having the Spirit should give us assurance. Of course it should (Romans 8:15,16; Ephesians 1:13,14). But how many Christians today know the assurance of Romans 8:15,16? Very few. Are we then to conclude that they do not have the Spirit? Well, that seems to be the conclusion you would be forced to take if you do not distinguish between the Spirit’s work in regeneration and Jesus Christ’s work in Spirit Baptism.
Look closely at Ephesians 1:13: “Having believed (aorist participle), you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance”.
Maybe you say that Acts is very exceptional… the norm is what you get in the teaching of the epistles. “We are sometimes told, ‘You never find the epistles exhorting people to be baptised with the Spirit.’ That is perfectly right, bu the answer is obvious. They are not exhorted to be baptized with the Spirit because they were already baptized with the Spirit!…
How many churches do you know at the present time to which it is necessary to write such a letter as the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians?”
Or maybe you would rely on a single verse to refute all this. In that case, you would want it to be a very clear verse, wouldn’t you? It had better be clearly addressing this issue. Well, the verse is often quoted: “For in [or by] one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)
Now I ask you: is this verse talking about Spirit-baptism?
In the video, Philip says “all the Christians in Corinth are all baptised into the one body by the one Spirit.” And this is precisely the point of the passage! The point is that there is only one body, not many, because there’s only one Spirit, not many. But what does it say about people who may be in this single body having different measures of experience/blessing from that single Spirit?
Nothing. It’s not the concern of the passage, nor does it speak one way or the other on the issue. It doesn’t say there is only one baptism, or anything else of that kind.
Now, Philip is much wiser than I and has been a Christian much, much, much longer. But I can’t help but wonder whether this doctrine might deserve another look. A generation or two ago Cessationism was all the rage… it’s on its last legs now. I wonder where else we might have gone wrong.
For more on this, see John Piper – for instance, this sermon and the rest of that series; and Martin Lloyd-Jones, especially his book Joy Unspeakable.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Comments
May 14th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Great stuff mate.
I feel similar to yourself in wanting a fair-trial for Baptism Of The Holy Spirit. Andrew Heard wrote a good article awhile back highlighting the dangers of a ‘two-step’ Christianity, and I’ve seen this play out recently with us looking for a church home.
I still feel the “You never find the epistles exhorting people to be baptised with the Spirit” fairly valid, especially in Paul’s letter to the Romans, where he basically says he hasn’t visited Rome yet so he’ll assume nothing and step through the whole good news of Christ.
Piper is also very good on this subject, like you mentioned, making a great point for some kind of tangible evidence or experience of receiving the Holy Spirit.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Really, that’s how you read Romans?
“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.” (chapter 1)
“But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God ” (chapter 15)
What do you think of Lloyd-Jones argument above that you never see them exhorted to be baptised because they already are? He argues, in fact, that this fact is essential in interpreting them – and one of my good mates agrees that many hard passages are made much easier with this assumption…
I might even suggest the Romans had been Spirit-baptised. See especially Romans 5:5, but also 16:14-15
May 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Ah gotta love quick comment responses. Sorry dude I was confusing.
I wasn’t arguing that the Romans didn’t experience Baptism of the Holy Spirit. They must of to be Christian. That’s my position.
My logic regarding Romans would be:
1. Paul didn’t write about Baptism of the Holy Spirit
2. Paul did write about almost every aspect of the gospel
3. Therefore Baptism of the Holy Spirit wasn’t important enough
4. Therefore it cannot be a crucial doctrine
5. Therefore it has to be tied up somehow with conversion or something that happens without you needing knowledge of it
6. Therefore Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a post-conversion / receiving of giftings for ministry / crucial step in Christian life
I’m very happy for you to challenge my steps and assumptions.
Haven’t read the Dr on this topic but will check it out. Thanks
May 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Sorry, when I say they experienced Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I mean the extra filling about which we are now discussing.
And of course it not an essential aspect of the gospel – if we’re speaking in terms of what happens in God’s acts of redemption and the way to salvation. It is rather something extra.
What form would you expect his writing to take? It’s no use exhorting them to have something happen to them which has already happened and over which they have no control. There might be instruction on what it is etc but then, he cannot write about everything.
We also must be careful of projecting our own concerns onto the text: why would we think this was even an issue for Paul? That is, its absence does not imply that it is not a crucial doctrine; only that its clarification or defense was not crucial at the time.
At his time, perhaps there was no question of whether they were different – everyone knew that first hand.
How could Paul have known that 2000 years later churches would be so practically atheistic in expectation and practice that the question would arise?
And this is where I find the epistles very challenging. How many Christians in our churches really know the joy of 1 Peter 1:9, the love of Romans 5:5, the assurance and communion of Romans 8:14-15.
We don’t ressonate with them, do we? Why not, I wonder…
Actually, I do resonate with this, to a degree: 2 of my friends have experienced Spirt-baptism. One suffered depression for a couple of years, and her gift of tongues was the basis of the assurance which got her through it.
Then there is the experiences of people like Blaise Pascal, Jonathan Edwards, DL Moody, John Wesley, Charles Simeon, John Flavel, a member of George Whitefield’s congregation November 5th 1740… I could go on – these men knew of God’s grace and believed in Him, yet were taken deeper by an overwhelming outpouring of God’s love into their hearts, an extraordinary revelation of God’s glory; after which all had a level of assurance they had never had before.
But I want to recount just one story in particular: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. I don’t know whether it was in the body or out of the body — God knows. And I know that this man… was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.
That account of that man’s experience… is from 2 Corinthians 12.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Good stuff.
Man, I’ve written about 10 drafts in response and I can’t put my thoughts into words. Perhaps a bit of time to reflect over the scriptures would clear my thoughts.
I don’t have a problem with the way you are talking about Spirit-Baptism and the guys you’re pointing to like Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards assure me of that.
I’m just sensitive to this topic cause my recent discussions with friends over finding a church home mix in very different circles and take Spirit-Baptism as a leading step to denying Jesus being God while on earth. Weird I know.
There’s a challenge for ya: how could believing in a form of Spirit-Baptism lead to believing Jesus was only a man.
I’ll respond to your questions hopefully tonight.
Peace bro
May 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I have no idea!
Maybe that Jesus got all his power when he was baptised in the Spirit (Mark 1), and wasn’t divine?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Good Luck and Happy Blogging.