This post is the third in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction
Are there incompatibilities?
When you really listen hard, what does Phillip Jensen actually offer as incompatibilities?
As hard as I tried, I could only find two: Second Baptism, and the Authority of the Scriptures.
Baptism of the Spirit
On this issue, I’m with D. A. Carson, who says “Although I find no biblical support for a second-blessing theology. I do find support for a second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-blessing theology.” (Also on this team: Stott, Piper, Lloyd-Jones, D. L. Moody, Jonathan Edwards and so on)
Phillip Jensen asserts that there are 7 references to baptism of the Spirit in the Bible and that all refer to regeneration, so any second (third, fourth) blessing theology is fundamentally at odds with reformed views on regeneration.
Here are all 7. I’d argue, actually, that only one refers to regeneration.
Jesus says in Acts 1:5, “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.†What event happened just days after Jesus said this? Pentecost, where the already regenerate disciples (see John 15:3-4) who already had the Spirit (see John 20:21-22), were filled, baptised in the Spirit. And this is something subsequent, quite apart from the work the Holy Spirit has already done in regenerating them.
The first 6 references clearly all refer to that baptism. The 7th, 1 Corinthians 12:13, is not concerned with the Baptism of the Spirit at all, but rather with regeneration. I’ve argued this elsewhere.
So the charismatic position is that the Holy Spirit is essential in regeneration (and is thus compatible with reformed theology) and also that the baptism of the Spirit is subsequent to that regenerating act. There is no incompatibility.
Authority of the Scriptures
This is a tired argument: the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. Any charismatic idea of prophecy being God speaking today tends to push us away from the Scriptures.
Well, that is certainly a temptation… which is why the Bible clearly instructs us to test prophecies and only hold on to what is good (1 Thes 5:19-21). Of course the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. No charismatic gift can replace that; nor is any necessary. And that perfect, inspired Word is precisely the means by which all prophecy is tested.
Yet God still blesses the church with prophets in grace that goes beyond what is merely necessary, whose authority is less than the Bible. And we are told not to despise them (1 Thes 5:20).
What Phillip is identifying here is not a disagreement, but rather a danger. The danger is that we might forget that Scriptures are the highest authority. Yes, it is a danger, but it is not a disagreement.
(Just like non-Charismatics face the same danger from reason and experience.
The topic of prophecy is a good example. Even though Paul talks about prophetic powers of understanding all mysteries (1 Cor 13:2) and lists it with healings, miracles, tongues, and distinguishing Spirits (1 Cor 12:9-10), Phillip has no experience in such extraordinary prophecies. Therefore, he interprets Scripture under the authority of his experience and so redefines prophecy to mean the preaching of Christ. So we’re all prophets, we all teach about Christ. He justifies this with Revelation 19:10, arguing it equates testimony about Jesus with prophecy. It doesn’t, it merely says that prophecy is to testify to Jesus, and so John is a fool to worship the angel.)
Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?
- Part I: Introduction
- Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
- Part III: Incompatibilities
- Part IV: We Believe the Bible
- Part V: We Want It All
« Reformed Charismatics? Part IV: We Believe the Bible Reformed Charismatics? Part II: Definitions and Emphasis »
Hi! I have only had time to read part of your blogs but would like to respond so far:
Re. Baptism of the Spirit and the disciples:
Jn 15: 3 does not speak of regeneration, only of being clean.
Jn 20: 21-22: may not be the time that the disciples received the Spirit, but may be anticipating it. As Jesus said,, they were to stay in Jerusalem until they received the gift his Father promised Acts 1: 4-5 when they would be baptised with the Spirit.
Prior to Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given to God’s people for specific tasks, eg the prophets, Zecharia and Elizabeth before Christ’s birth; but He had not been given to indwell all believers generally.
Also it is important to interpret the narratives in the light of the theological teachings and doctrines contained in the epistles. They should not contradict each other, and should shed light on each other. Therefore Eph. 1: 13-14 becomes very important: “13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”
In summary (and I must read more later-too late now) Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I think the scripture refers to more instances of being filled with the Spirit, which may be what is given the term of the experience of “baptism of the Spirit” by charismatics as a later blessing following conversion.
Yes, that’s right, those ‘filled with the Spirit’ instances are thought to be synonymous with ‘baptised in the Spirit’.
But how do you know that the term Baptism properly refers to the one (regeneration) and not the other (fillings)?
Would you say the disciples were regerate the day before pentecost? How is that possible, since charismatics and cessationists agree you cannot be regenerate without the Holy Spirit?
Certainly the narratives and epistles should not contradict each other. So where exactly is the contradiction between this and Ephesians 1?
Notice it says ‘having believed’, that is a very good translation of the aorist (past tense) participle. Having believed, you were sealed, or, equivalently, after having believed, you were sealed. This sealing also refers to a post-conversion filling/baptism.
I would prove it by asking, in what sense is your experience of the Spirit sealing you a guarentee?
In what sense might a baptism/filling experience act as a guarentee?
Here is John Wesley:
“in whom after ye had believed – Probably some time after their first believing. Ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise – Holy both in his nature and in his operations, and promised to all the children of God. The sealing seems to imply, A full impression of the image of God on their souls. A full assurance of receiving all the promises, whether relating to time or eternity.”