SEARCH

Weakness and Power in the New Testament: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 56-68). It is reproduced here with permission.

The fundamental tenet in neo-pentecostalism is that conversion and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are distinct experiences.1 Whereas conversion is an experience of the ‘person’ of Jesus Christ, the baptism is an experience with the ‘person’ of the Holy Spirit—different experiences with different ‘persons’.

Let us hear the answers the neo-pentecostals give to our questions: Who baptises me with the Holy Spirit? Jesus does. When? Usually at some time after conversion—though sometimes at the same time. Why does Jesus baptise me thus? To give me power to witness to him.

It is maintained that this experience is intended for every converted person. Indeed, unless and until believers enjoy the baptism the church will remain powerless. We are encouraged to check out the classical Acts passages for the evidence for these claims.

The Acts passage and power

As we inspect these passages let us ask two questions. Was there any pattern of double experience of the Holy Spirit? Did the coming of the Holy Spirit lead to power for witness to Jesus? Let us confine ourselves to the evidence as we set out these cases and questions:

Are there two experiences of the Holy Spirit?
Pentecost—No: one Holy Spirit reference (2:4).
Samaria—No: one Holy Spirit reference (8:17).
Saul—No: one Holy Spirit reference (9:17).
Caesarea—No: one Holy Spirit reference (10:44).
Ephesus—No: one Holy Spirit reference (19:6).

Was there power leading to witness?
Pentecost—Tongues (2:4) followed by witness to the resurrection (2:14 ff.).
Samaria—Something observable. No reference to power or witness.
Saul—Saul proclaims Jesus as Son of God (9:20).
Caesarea—Tongues (10:46). No reference to power or witness.
Ephesus—Tongues/prophecy (19:6). No reference to power or witness.
Let us note two matters.

1.The neo-pentecostal position demands two receptions of the Holy Spirit: one to make conversion possible; the other for the baptism of the Spirit. In each of these passages there is only one reference to the Holy Spirit; there is not pattern of subsequence.2
2.There is no evidence for power-for-witness at Samaria, Caesarea or Ephesus. There reference to witness/proclamation are confined to those who were specifically called to this ministry (Acts 1:8; 9:15; cf. 22:15 and 26:16-18). The onus of proof is on the neo-pentecostal to demonstrate that the coming of the Spirit in these other cases led to power for witness.
‘Power’ in the New Testament

The English ‘power’ translates the Greek word dynamis. From the concordance we observe the following:

1.The evidence for dynamis with respect to evangelism is confined to apostles and those recognised by the laying on of hands for specific ministries.
2.Paul’s apostolic mission was accompanied by dynamis (Rom. 15:18-19). Yet he pointedly affirms that the gospel is the dynamis of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). It is the gospel of Christ crucified which is the dynamis of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 24).
3.The evidence of dynameis by ordinary church members (as opposed to apostles and those specifically recognised) is confined to internal congregational situations, not evangelism (Gal. 3:5; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28).
4.The majority of the remaining references to dynamis refer to Christ’s resurrection power released in us for godly living (Eph. 1:19; 3:16, 20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:11).
5.The available evidence (including early church history contemporary with later New Testament documents) suggest a profusion of dynameis clustered around the apostles’ testimony to Jesus:

... so great salvation, which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, by the signs and wonders and manifold powers [dynameis], and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will’ (Heb. 2:3-4, RV, authors’ italics, cf. Heb. 6:5).
As early as the 230s Origen equated the ‘greater works’ (John 14:12) with ‘miracles’ of conversion (Contra Celsum, Book 2).

Again the burden of proof lies with the neo-pentecostals to establish that ordinary Christians had special Holy Spirit power for witness, and that a subsequent empowering of the Holy Spirit for witness, beyond conversion, was normative in the New Testament.

The flesh and the Spirit in Romans 8

The consistent use of the present tense in Romans 7 indicates that Paul is speaking about the believer. Paul, speaking personally, reveals what happens in the life of the Christian when the demands of the law confront the still sinful will. Such a believer experiences anguish in conscience in the awareness of his moral failures. He is the ‘wretched’ man who calls out for deliverance.

In Romans 8 Paul specifies the two areas from which we need deliverance: sin and death.

How am I delivered from sin? The answer is found in a further question: what is the nature of my deliverance? It is the deliverance of FAITH. It is the conviction that the sins of my flesh have been condemned in the flesh of God’s own Son (8:1, 3). Therefore as a forgiven sinner I no longer live in the flesh. Instead I walk with God, in the Spirit. Because of this relationship, Spirit with spirit, I now fulfil the deepest requirement of the law, which is love (8:4).

But it is easy to slip back into the flesh, to fall away from faith-in-Jesus to self-reliance. This is to become a works-based person. Consequently we have the mind of the flesh, not the mind of the Spirit (8:5). Such persons are bound for death (8:6), are opposed to God (8:7), cannot please God (8:8).

We insist that faith-in-Christ is not a work. It is a relationship. In order to receive the so-called baptism the neo-pentecostal lays down conditions beyond faith-in-Jesus.3 We maintain that any such condition, however innocent it may appear, is in fact a ‘work’. Faith-in-Jesus is not a condition, it is a relationship. Other prescribed attitudes like ‘emptying’ or ‘faith-to-receive’ do not reflect the New Testament and are in fact works. As such they belong to the flesh. They are designed to bring the Holy Spirit. In fact they drive him away. They create a mind which is actually opposed to God.

It may be suggested that such a statement is grossly unfair to the movement whose whole raison d’etre is the Holy Spirit. Yet we detect a faulty perspective about the Holy Spirit in neo-pentecostal writers precisely because of their preoccupation with the Spirit. It seems that the alleged baptism is more significant for them than conversion to Christ. Neo-pentecostal preachers speak about conversion in minimal terms as compared with the superlatives they reserve for the baptism. We maintain that conversion to Christ occupies in experience and teaching a large place in the perspectives of the New Testament.

We suggest true spirituality will be seen in the preacher and writer who exalts Christ and salvation in him.

We have reservations about the claims that the doctrinal difference between Protestants and Catholics are transcended by the ‘baptism’. The conservative evangelical insistence on justification by faith alone is made to sound outmoded and sterile next to the new and exciting ecumenical fellowship. We do not deny the fact of ‘fellowship’ in such situations. It is a fellowship based on common subjective experience and attitude. It is not, however, a fellowship in the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42). It is not a fellowship in the truth that God freely saves man through the death of Jesus. We conclude it to be not a fellowship of the Holy Spirit, but of the human spirit. That is not necessarily to condemn it. It may lead profitably to a fellowship in the Spirit. But let us be clear that if there is no fundamental agreement in the gospel of the grace of God it is not fellowship in the Holy Spirit, however emotionally satisfying it may be.

The other great predicament dealt with by Paul in Romans 8 is death. How am I delivered from death? The answer is again found in a further question: what is the nature of my deliverance from death? It is the deliverance of HOPE. It is future. It is not yet. It is unseen.

What is seen is my inextricable involvement in a universe which is dying. But wait. The groans of the universe and man are not the groans of a dying person, but a woman in labour who is about to give birth—to a new, utterly free creation. And the groans are not the groans of death but of expectancy. They are not hopeless but hopeful.

My groaning in this corrupt world is entirely compatible with the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life—he does not free me except in hope. Indeed the groans themselves are in one place (v. 26) said to be the voice of the Spirit.

Neo-pentecostalism is preoccupied with healing and power. It despises wrinkles and short-sight and sickness as indicating failure to grasp God’s power. It little realises that of the very groans of the weak, suffering man Paul writes ‘... the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groans which cannot be uttered.’

We go so far as to say that it is the will of God for us to have the knowledge of him in vessels of earth so that the exceeding greatness of the pwer may be of God and not from ourselves (2 Cor. 4:7).

We conclude our remarks on Romans 8 by observing Pauls’ manner of describing the Holy Spirit:

‘the Spirit of God’ (v. 9);
‘the Spirit of Christ’ (v. 9);
‘Christ in you’ (v. 10).
This bears on the neo-pentecostal assertion that the baptism with/in the Holy Spirit is an experience with a different ‘person’ distinct from our experience of Jesus Christ. We insist that the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ Spirit now indwelling in us. The Holy Spirit is Jesus with us and in us now. He is Jesus’ Spirit residing in our spirit.

The following texts make this clear:

Romans 8:9-10: Spirit of God... Spirit of Christ... Christ in you...
Galatians 2:20: Christ lives in me.
2 Corinthians 3:16-17: The Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit.
Acts 16:6-7: The Holy Spirit forbade... the Spirit of Jesus did not allow...
Matthew 28:20: Lo, I [Jesus] am with you always, to the close of the age.
John 14:16-18: The Father will give you another Counsellor... I [Jesus] will come to you.
Clearly the Holy Spirit and Jesus are so linked in our experience that the characteristic neo-pentecostal division between them is unfair to the New Testament data. When we yield our lives to Jesus, his Spirit comes into our lives. If we do not have his Spirit in our lives we do not belong to Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. There is no other Spirit. If the foregoing is correct the neo-pentecostal is, in effect, forced to say that the Spirit-baptised believer has the Spirit of Jesus (conversion) and the Holy Spirit (the baptism)—two different Spirits!

Neo-pentecostals say that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not essentially an experience of the person of Jesus Christ; it is an experience of the Holy Spirit. Are there two different Spirits: the Spirit of Jesus in conversion and the Holy Spirit in the baptism?

The Spirit and metamorphosis: 2 Corinthians 3-5

This passage, like Romans 8, deals with the work of the Spirit in men who belong to a decaying world. Paul’s emphasis is on the decay in the body of the believer. It is suggested, not implausibly, that the awareness of death was very real to Paul at the time of writing (see 2 Cor. 1:9).

When Moses ‘turned to the Lord’ he removed the veil from his face. When men turn to the Lord (Jesus) the veil of heart-hardness is removed. To turn to the Lord is to turn to the new covenant of the Holy Spirit and to turn away from the old covenant of the letter. To turn to the Lord Jesus is spirit (as opposed to letter) and brings the Spirit of the Lord into one’s life.

But the vessel into which this precious awareness of the Lord comes is ‘earthen’ (4: 6-7). Thus Paul says, ‘our outward man is decaying’ (4:16, RV). Is Paul discouraged by the disintegration of his own body? He is not.

Why is Paul not discouraged? While our outward man is disintegrating God is creating another ‘building’, eternal in the heavens, with which to clothe us, so that we will not be found naked in death. We yearn for this house now because God has already given us, in the midst of our decay, the initial instalment of the Holy Spirit, whom we shall possess in full measure at the end. Then we shall be clothed upon with our new house.

In our decaying state we continue to behold two objects. First, the glory of the Lord Jesus (3:8; 4:6) and also, the unseen and eternal thing God has for us (4:18-5:1). All the while the Holy Spirit is creating in us an ever-increasing ‘weight of glory’ (4:16-17). Thus we are transformed from the glory of Christ made known to us in the gospel to the glory of the End (3:18; cf. 4:6 and 4:17, 18).

Decay, then, is not against the will of God. It is within God’s plan, because God has a new creation for us in heaven for which the Holy Spirit gives us a powerful anticipation. We are to set our hearts on the future redemption of our bodies, the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Neo-pentecostals refer to a great post-conversion experience of the Holy Spirit for power. They call man to set their hope on it to empower them to witness and heal, etc. The apostle has no such expectancy. Nor does he hold it out for his readers. His expectancy for what is visible about him is decline and decay. But his expectancy for what is invisible about him is an ever-increasing weight of glory. The only second experience the believer can hope for is the final redemption.

Paul and the apostles of power: 2 Corinthians 10-13

Power is one of the major concepts in neo-pentecostalism. Neo-pentecostals claim to have received power through the alleged baptism. They are apostles for the experience of power among the ‘weak’ and ‘powerless’ ordinary believers.

An interesting parallel is found in 2 Corinthians 10-13 where some apostles or higher religious experience had intruded themselves into the church (11:5).To them Paul was ‘in the flesh’ (10:3, RV) and ‘weak’ (10:10). He was not regarded as a member of the ‘Christ’ party (10:7, cf. 1 Cor. 1:12). Christ did not speak through Paul (13:3).

Paul has ‘introduced’ the Corinthians to Jesus. They and Jesus are engaged and they will be married when he comes. Paul, who has introduced them, is jealous on Christ’s behalf for his fiancĂ©e (11:2). But these apostles of power have now matched the Corinthians with another Jesus. Thus Paul complains that the Corinthians received another Jesus whom Paul did not preach, received a different spirit from the one they received, accepted a different gospel from the one they accepted (11:4). Thus the simple and pure relationship which was previously directed towards Jesus has been corrupted.

Paul not only describes such apostles as tyrants (11:20) and servants of Satan (11:13-15); he deliberately sets out to boast of his weakness. His long catalogue of weakness is crowned by the ignominy of being lowered down the wall at Damascus (11:16-33). Then, indeed, he recounts an experience of ‘power’ he had fourteen (!) years ago (12:1-4). He speaks impersonally and no details are given. But Paul will not boast of this power. His boast is weakness (12:5-6). His weakness is an undisclosed ‘thorn’ which pinned him to the earth, for removal of which he prayed three times. It was from Satan, over whom neo-pentecostals promise power; yet Paul was powerless to defeat it. But the Lord said (and Paul still hears him), ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’ (12:9). Paul indicates that his experience of power in this revelation tended to exalt him (12:7). Indeed such experiences will always exalt the sinful ego. Therefore weakness, not power, is Christ’s will. His power, which is his mercy, is made perfect in the weakness and vulnerability of human experience.

The neo-pentecostal claims to have power. Quite understandably he wants us to have power. His motives appear to be righteous. But righteous motives do not justify his proselytisation. He must ascertain whether power is Jesus’ will for his people.

God actually blesses us in weakness.

The onus is on the neo-pentecostal to demonstrate that it is the will of Jesus for us to be power-filled Christians. Unless he can demonstrate this let him desist from being an apostle of power.

On the basis of Romans 8 we say to the neo-pentecostal: don’t tempt us with your power lest you deprive us of the hope given to us by the birth-pangs of the new creation through the Holy Spirit.

On the basis of 2 Corinthians 3-5 we say to the neo Pentecostal: don’t tempt us with your power lest you deprive us of that renewal in the inner man as we contemplate the unseen but real eternal weight of glory.

On the basis of 2 Corinthians 10-13 we say to the neo-pentecostal: we don’t want your power. We are weak. We want to have perfected in us his power, which is his mercy. Power in sinful man will deify him, will remove him from the mercy of the Lord, which is his power to save us. His real power is his mercy, though we are afflicted by a messenger from Satan about which we are powerless, even though we pray. In this situation where we are powerless he is powerful, because we are thankfully aware of this all-sufficient mercy.
---

1. See, e.g. J. Baker, Baptized in One Spirit, pp. 13-14.
2.Neo-pentecostals are forced to say that the experience of the Spirit in conversion is so insignificant that the author of Acts does not even refer to it. This is a strange omission in view of the enormous weight given to the Spirit’s work in conversion expounded elsewhere in the N.T., e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:11.
3.E.g., J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongue Speaking According to Scripture, pp. 84 ff., gives the steps to the baptism as dissatisfaction with my spiritual condition, true repentance, expressed in obedience, and believing prayer. We regard these as conditions, as works. If a friend promises me a gift I simply believe my friend as a man of his work. I manifestly regard his simple promises as suspect if I begin to exercise myself in tortuous steps. These steps express lack of trust: I need to secure favour by ever more complex inner attitudes. These are works of the flesh. They expel the Spirit. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Pentecostals and Conservative Evangelicals: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 69-80). It is reproduced here with permission.

Neo-pentecostals and conservative evangelicals enjoy a broad agreement about Christian doctrine. Both groups agree about the authority of the Bible, the efficacy of the atonement, the unique Sonship of Jesus and his return, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and our obligation to fulfil the great commission to bring men under the lordship of Jesus. For all of that we are genuinely grateful. The differences are found in such areas as the nature of the Christian life and in the way we use the Bible. Let us identify areas where the most serious differences occur.

The neo-pentecostal doctrine of ‘subsequence-consequence’

To be fair, ‘subsequence-consequence’ is our title. Neo-pentecostals believe that God intends already converted people to have a great religious experience subsequent to conversion. This is most frequently referred to as the ‘baptism in (or with) the Holy Spirit’. The chief consequence of the subsequent experience is ‘power’. It is power for signs, power for witness; but some writers extend the consequences to greater godliness, love for God, family, etc.

We reject this doctrine because there is not one command or promise in the New Testament that we should have this experience. Neo-pentecostals are unable to produce a single promise or command of either the Lord or his apostles with respect to subsequence-consequence.

The neo-pentecostal doctrine of ‘conditions’ or ‘steps’

If there is a baptism for power, the next question is: how can I have it? Harper1 speaks of ‘conditions of receiving’; Schep2 refers to ‘steps’ to ‘fullness’. We schematise their conditions as follows:



These conditions are appealingly righteous. But they presuppose a clear command and/or promise in scripture that we have a baptism for power subsequent to conversion. Yet there is not one text in the New Testament where a baptism for power subsequent to conversion is promised or commanded.

In spirit, the above conditions really belong to becoming and being a Christian. They are the marks of the Christian attitude to God. Indeed one must seriously doubt that a person is a believer at all if these marks are missing. But once a person becomes a Christian these things, when considered as conditions of a not-yet-arrived baptism for power, become ‘works’. It is common for people to fulfil the conditions and not receive the baptism. So they must fulfil the conditions at a deeper level, then at an even deeper level, etc.

At conversion we are promised that the sinner who genuinely comes to Jesus in repentance and faith will be received. But the experience of the baptism depends on my attitudes reaching such a pitch before it can happen. Conversion is by faith alone; the baptism is by attitude-achievement. This seems like beginning in the Spirit and being perfected by the flesh. We believe that the required baptism with its prior attitudinal conditions is similar to the false gospel condemned in Galatians.

The neo-pentecostal use of the Bible

We have grave difficulties with common neo-pentecostal practice at this point.

We regret, for example, that many writers and preachers use without qualification a disputed text of the Bible. It is almost beyond doubt that Mark 16:9-20 is no part of the original text since it does not occur in our best and earliest manuscripts. The reader must judge the propriety of binding on men as God’s word a passage which honest scholarly opinion doubts to be part of the word of God. (See Mark 16:9-20 and Speaking in Tongues)

Further, it is an invalid method to take narrative parts of the Bible and convert them into promises or commands. The author may hold a narrative incident up for imitation, but it ought not to be assumed that the author is doing more than informing us what happened (unless this is clearly indicated). The black deeds in the latter part of the Judges are not commands to ‘do likewise’. Nor are Job’s comforters examples for us. The communal sharing of the Jerusalem church does not bind our consciences. In other words a description is not a prescription. ‘Is’ is not ‘ought’. The scriptures that bind our wills and consciences are commands and promises of the Lord or his apostles as found in recorded speech or in the epistles.

We are unhappy about the neo-pentecostal method of deducing doctrine from the scriptures. How, for example, do they establish their doctrine of the baptism as subsequence-consequence?

Their method

1.They begin with the Baptist’s prophecy that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit. (It is usually assumed, without discussion, that the Baptist’s prophecy refers to their concept of subsequence-consequence).
2.They proceed to the five celebrated Acts passages and conclude they teach the baptism as subsequence-consequence. We observe that their doctrine of subsequence-consequence is only really a possibility in two of the passages (Samaria and Ephesus), but that both of these passages are equally capable of alternative or even better interpretations. Further, the one occasion where the Baptist’s prophecy of the baptism is quoted is applied to the case everyone agrees is impossible for subsequence-consequence, the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 11:15-17 and 15:7-9).

Our method

1.We also begin with the Baptist’s prophecy that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit. We do not assume that we know what Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit means.
2.We then proceed to clear promises and statements where John’s prophecy is explained. What did Jesus understand by John’s prophecy? Thus we investigate the Paraclete passages in John 14-16. What did the evangelist understand? Thus we investigate John 7:37-39. What did the apostles upon whom the Spirit came understand? Thus we investigate Acts 2:38.

We believe that the narrative passages in the Acts have been misused and the promises/commands about the baptism with the Spirit ignored or submitted to violent treatment. Let us consider one of these promises. We regard Acts 2:38 as a very important promise. On the day of Pentecost those Jews who heard Peter’s explanation that the Spirit had come because Jesus was made Lord and Christ (whom they had crucified) asked Peter what they were to do. Peter replied, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’

Here is the clearest of statements: do this (command) and you shall receive that (promise). This command/promise is the norm for receiving ( = being baptised in) the Holy Spirit. It appears as the norm again and again in the Acts (e.g., 8:15-16 where the abnormality in the delay between command and promise is indicated by the ‘not yet fallen… they had only been baptised’; see also 10:43-44; 11:15-17; 15:8-11; 19:2; 22:16). Yet despite the clarity of this command/promise M. Harper,3 for example, drives a wedge between the command and the promise. He prises the promise away from the command and makes it relate to the allegedly subsequent experience, the baptism. But the command and the promise belong together and they both relate to the gift of the Holy Spirit in conversion ( = the baptism with/in the Spirit). By teasing the scripture apart in this manner the concept of subsequence is falsely imported into the passage.

Again, we cannot agree with a tendency to import into a passage information from the other places where there is no clear evidential link. Harper4 actually insists, without even arguing the case, that the twelve Ephesian disciples were leading figures in the notable progress in the gospel in Asia recorded in Acts 19:8 ff. For this there is not one shred of evidence.

Finally, neo-pentecostal writers generalise too easily. For example, can we assume, as they do, that every congregation was as gifted as the church at Corinth? Can we assume that tongues speaking continued to be a feature of the church life at Jerusalem, Caesarea or Ephesus? Can we assume that every believer could perform the signs which were performed by the apostles or that they apostles were able to do them at will? All this is assumed. Then all one needs is an out-of-context proof-text like ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever’ and we have an emotional appeal to our consciences that we are spiritually ‘B’ grade because Jesus isn’t performing miracles through us today in the same way.

What do we think of the neo-pentecostal experiences?

Most will agree with the following propositions about the nature of religious experience.

1.Each of us is psychologically complex. We do not fully understand ourselves.
2.Psychological make-up varies from person to person. Men are psychologically different from women, for example.
3.The scriptures say little about the subjective details in Christian experience.
4.Religious experience varies from person to person and is, in itself, no final guide to godliness.
5.God constantly blesses us as his children. Sometimes our emotions are caught up more than at other times. Such occasions stand out in our memories. They are not necessarily greater blessings simply because we were more emotionally involved.

We do not deny the reality of the Holy Spirit experiences of many neo-pentecostals. We locate the problem in the interpretation placed on spiritual experiences, especially post-conversion experiences. For example, one person may have been a Christian for some time and then come into a new assurance of forgiveness. Another person may discover a new spiritual dimension by submitting to the lordship of Jesus. Yet another may be awakened as to gifts of evangelism of which he was hitherto unaware. So we could go on. The possibilities are as endless as the human personality is complex and the Christian experience diverse. Truly our God is inexhaustible in his treasures of blessings for our human diversity and complexity.

In the past twenty years we have witnessed a resurgence of spiritual interests throughout the world. One could attribute this to the age of anxiety in which we are living, as well as the final bankruptcy of theological liberalism (‘God is dead’) and the cold irrelevancy of mainstream orthodox churches. The present resurgence is in part, not doubt, a reaction against all of this.

As individuals have been caught up in this worldwide resurgence it has become the custom to describe the nature of one’s own spiritual upsurge as ‘the baptism with the Spirit’. We do not deny nor seek to destroy the reality of the experience. But we are pleading that a proper interpretation be placed upon it. Let those concerned speak of ‘spiritual reawakening’ or ‘spiritual renewal’. Let them supply information about date and place if they wish, as a form of testimony. But let them not bring biblical terminology to bear on a range of experiences which scripture doesn’t preclude, but about which it gives no detail.

What we plead is that we stop trying to read into the scriptures subjective details of post-conversion spiritual experience. Immediately the Bible is invoked for details two things seem always to happen.

1.The pressure of strong subjective experience forces those concerned to twist the scriptures into the mould of their experience pattern (which has often been pre-suggested by neo-pentecostal speakers and writers). They theologise from their experience into the Bible.
2.Those who enjoy a spiritual reawakening then directly or indirectly call on other Christians to enjoy the same experience pattern. This is improper in itself. But worse, they do it from the scriptures, which means that the exhortation comes with all the force of the word of God on our conscience.

However, the call to have the baptism (understood as subsequence-consequence) is not the word of God because neither the Lord nor the apostles call on us to have such an experience. We can only ascribe good motives to those who thus exhort us. But we say to them: don’t impose your experience pattern on us and don’t do it from the scriptures (for it isn’t there) in the name of the Lord.

We believe the neo-pentecostal must not only search his conscience, he must also use the scriptures with infinite care. If he fails to do this, despite the excellence of his motives, he will become a false prophet since he calls people to fulfil something as the will of God on which the word of God is silent.

We, the authors, wish to make it clear that we are not opposed to tongues speaking provided there is no coercion to non-tongues speakers and that the activity is kept within the restrictions set out in 1 Corinthians 14. Nor do we discount the possibility of miracles of healing for this age. We do in fact welcome the gifts and fellowship of neo-pentecostals in our churches. We see one thing as the great obstacle to fellowship of this kind. That obstacle is the doctrine of subsequence-consequence, the view that the scriptures teach the neo-pentecostal baptism in the Spirit. We believe that this doctrine is in fact a new legalism: that it is Spirit expelling. Equally serious, it divided the brethren, it classified brothers according to whether or not they have enjoyed this experience. Experience, not the death of Jesus, has for them become the basis of fellowship. We are not optimistic about the effects of the movement while the alleged baptism remains one of its central planks. Remove this and we can see no difficulty about deep fellowship in evangelism and edification.

The challenge to conservatism

It must not be thought that we uncritically endorse traditional conservative evangelicalism. We rejoice in the great insights of the classical reformers. We affirm that there are many splendid congregations and outstanding individual Christians within this venerable tradition.

Nevertheless we must admit that many churches in the historic Protestant denominations are cold and lifeless. The church members frequently appear ultra-conservative, being unprepared to consider even the most moderate revisions of the liturgy. Worse, they appear to have no concern for those outside the church, or even the young within the church if they happen to have long hair.

‘Church’ takes on the appearance of a monotonous grind. The members seem to be unable to enter into any meaningful relationship with one another, scarcely therefore with people outside the church. Sharing, fellowship, caring, mutual ministry, exercise of gifts—all these are for many, it seems, meaningless categories.

By contrast the neo-pentecostal meeting is frequently a joyful occasion with lively music and a sincere sense of love and sharing between the members. Many find the neo-pentecostal meeting infinitely to be preferred because of factors like these.

It would not be surprising if many attach themselves to such meetings not because of neo-pentecostal doctrine, but because of the nature of the meetings.

Neo-pentecostalism is a movement of religious enthusiasm. It will reject the cold and formal and create new patterns of its own which express spiritual zeal and enthusiasm. Again, it would not be surprising if the experience of the baptism many claim to have is in fact an expression of the joy of free fellowship and sharing in a warmly emotional situation.

Many orthodox churches could benefit from an injection of enthusiasm and warmth.

What is God teaching us in the orthodox churches through this outbreak of religious enthusiasm in our midst? We make five suggestions:

1.The Holy Spirit has been, up to a point, the neglected person of the Godhead. Christians need to study the teaching of scripture about him. Preachers and Bible teachers should devote more time to teaching about his work in our lives. Nevertheless the Holy Spirit’s role is to glorify Jesus, not himself. Any study of the person and work of the Holy Spirit must be in relation to the person and work of Jesus.
2.Preaching frequently lacks balance. Some preaching is academic and lacks warm personal exhortation. Most preaching has little teaching content, consisting merely of slogans and pious appeals. The New Testament writing reflects the preaching of the early church. Here we find teaching and exhortations interwoven, with the exhortations based on the teaching. We need to recover this balance so that people are encouraged and exhorted on the basis of the truth of the gospel.
3.Christians are often uninformed about membership of the body and the fact that they belong to one another as brothers and sisters. Much time needs to be devoted to effective communication about this unique New Testament pattern. Until we learn to share with one another we will not be able to share with outsiders. We need to learn to give ourselves to others, to listen, to care and to share.
4.Christians often do not understand that the Spirit who converted them also baptised them into a body and imparted gifts to them for the growth of the body. The clergy need to give consistent teaching about this and also to create the situations where the exercise of gifts in the body is possible. We ought to come away from meetings convinced that we have met with the living God. The lively exercise of the gifts of the Spirit will be an evidence of his life in our churches.
5.Christians often do not understand the gospel, only rarely have they any idea how to go about sharing it with others, while few indeed have the ability to answer even the fundamental objections raised by unbelievers. The clergy must begin to train and equip church members, and stimulate the work of evangelism. There are specialists in evangelism and apologetics available to instruct people.
---

1.M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ (Fountain Trust, London, 1964), pp. 38-42.
2.J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongues Speaking, pp. 84-97.
3.M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ, pp. 39, 40; and J. Baker, Baptized in One Spirit, p. 9.
4.M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ, p. 49.
5.Quoted from A Discourse of the Subtill Practices of Devilles by Witches and Sorcerers, in K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1971). talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.