Additional resource: R. C. Sproul: The Baptism of the Holy Spirit – devotional
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (v. 13). – 1 Corinthians 12:12–13
Recently, a history of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century titled The Century of the Holy Spirit was published. The title reflects the fact that a renewed discussion of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian world occurred in the last century. More books about the Holy Spirit have been written since the mid-twentieth century than were written in all the years of church history before then combined.
Much of this is due to the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, with their emphases on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and “sign gifts” such as tongues. These traditions tend to distinguish between Spirit-filled Christians and non-Spirit-filled Christians. Anyone who trusts in Jesus for salvation is a non-Spirit-filled Christian, while Spirit-filled Christians have experienced a second work of grace known as the baptism of the Holy Spirit—an infilling of God’s Spirit with power and gifts for ministry. Normally, Pentecostals believe speaking in tongues proves that one has received the Holy Spirit.
Theologians in this tradition justify their view by appealing to the four instances recorded in the Acts of the Apostles when people received the Holy Spirit in an experience distinct from conversion: Jewish believers; Samaritan believers; God-fearers (Gentiles who believed in Yahweh without being circumcised); and believers who were once pagan Gentiles (2:1–13; 8:14–17; 10:9–48; 19:1–7). However, the New Testament nowhere else describes a second work of grace, making these narratives at best an incomplete foundation on which to build a theology of the Spirit. Acts records the transition in redemptive history when God, for our sake, had to make it clear that His gifts were no longer limited to Jews. In fact, Acts begins by telling us that the Apostles would witness to Christ first in Jerusalem, then in Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth (1:8). Notably, the Spirit baptisms Luke records in Acts conform to this geographic spread of the gospel: Jews in Jerusalem, God-fearers in Judea, Samaritans in Samaria, and Gentiles, who represent the ends of the earth. These baptisms confirm that none who are welcomed into God’s kingdom through faith in Christ alone are second-class citizens.
Ultimately, traditional Pentecostal theology has an untenable view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:12–13, the Spirit has baptized all believers into one body. There are no Holy Spirit have-nots in the kingdom of God.
When we separate the baptism of the Holy Spirit from conversion, we end up with second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. But as the Lord has poured out His Spirit on all His people, this is impossible. Christians may be at different points in their sanctification and level of Christian maturity, but no Christian lacks the Holy Spirit in his life. Let us be encouraged by this, for it means that we will certainly grow into conformity to Christ.
by John Murray
In reference to all the aspects from which God’s saving grace may be viewed we must always reckon with the reality and gravity of sin. The salvation God has provided is more than salvation from sin and its consequences. Its design embraces the exceeding riches of God’s grace and contemplates the highest conceivable destiny that could be bestowed upon creatures, conformity to the image of God’s own Son that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (cf. Rom. 8:29). But no such destiny could be envisioned or achieved without salvation from sin in all its ramifications and liabilities. In order to be salvation to it must first of all be salvation from.
We cannot assess the gravity of sin unless we probe to that which is central in its definition. If we say that sin is selfishness we do state something that belongs to the character of sin, especially if we think of self-centeredness and construe this as involving the worship of self rather than of the Creator (cf.Rom. 1:25). The iniquity of sin is thereby disclosed. Again, if we say that sin is the assertion of human autonomy versus the sovereignty of God we are saying something relevant. Sin is precisely that, and it became apparent in Eden when the sin of our race began.
But we must ask: are these analyses sufficient? To put it otherwise: does not Scripture warrant and compel a more penetrating description? When Paul says that “the carnal mind is enmity against God” (Rom. 8:7), he has surely provided us with what is ultimate in the definition of sin. Sin is the contradiction of God, contradiction all along the line of God’s unique and essential glory. Nothing is more germane to God’s glory than his truth; he is truth. The tempter was well aware of this and so his strategy was framed accordingly. To the woman he said: “ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). This was blatant contradiction of God’s veracity. When the woman acceded to this contradiction her integrity collapsed and to sin she became captive. Our Lord’s indictment of the tempter is to the effect that his own fall from integrity was of the same character as that by which he seduced Eve. “He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
Yes, the essence of sin is to be against God (cf. Ps. 51:4); it is the contradiction of God in the whole range of its connotation and application. When Paul wrote, “the carnal mind is enmity against God,” he added, “for it is not subject to the law of God” (Rom. 8:7). It is significant that the law of God should be specified in this connection. The enmity manifests itself in insubjection to the law of God. And not only so. The insubjection may be said to constitute the enmity, the contradiction. For the law is the glory of God coming to expression for the regulation of human thought, word, and action consonant with the image in which man has been created. So sin can be defined in terms of law as “lawlessness” (I John 3:4).
The contradiction which sin offers to God and to his will, if it is not adequately described as resistance, involves and is expressed in resistance. Scripture sometimes uses this term or its equivalents to express the attitude of unbelief (cf. Acts 7:51; 13:45; Rom. 10:21; II Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:9). It is obvious that sin consists in resistance to the will of God. If the claims of God were not resistible, there would be no sin. The claims of God come to expression in the gospel and all rejection of the gospel and of its demands is resistance. In the gospel we have the supreme revelation of the grace of God, and Christ is the embodiment of that grace. The glory of God is nowhere more effulgent than in the face of Jesus Christ. Hence unbelief is resistance of grace at the zenith of its disclosure and overture. So to say that all grace is irresistible is to deny the plain facts of observation and experience as also of Scripture teaching. Stephen was bold enough to indict his unbelieving audience with resistance to the Holy Spirit: “Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). This is the enormity of unbelief; it is the contradiction of sin expressing itself in resistance to the claims and overtures of supreme love and grace. “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19).
When we speak of irresistible grace, therefore, it is not to assert that all grace is irresistible, nor is it to deny the numberless respects in which grace is resisted and resisted to the culmination of resistance in everlasting doom. In fact the truth of and necessity for irresistible grace may be most cogently demonstrated in the premise of resistible grace. The enmity of the human heart is most virulent at the point of the supreme revelation of God’s glory. So deep-seated and persistent is the contradiction that the Saviour as the embodiment of grace is rejected. It is when we recognize this that the need for irresistible grace is perceived.
In much of present-day evangelism it is assumed that the one thing man can do in the exercise of his own liberty is to believe in Christ for salvation. It is supposed that this is the one contribution that man himself must make to set the forces of salvation in operation and that even God himself can do nothing towards this end until there is this crucial decision on man’s own part. In this assessment there is total failure to reckon with human depravity, with the nature of the contradiction that sin involves. Paul tells us that not only is the mind of the flesh not subject to the law of God but also that it cannot be (Rom. 8:7). This impossibility extends to the gospel as well. It is the implication of Paul’s other word that “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). But to this truth we have the most pointed and express witness of our Lord himself. “No man can come unto me except the Father who hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44); “no man can come unto me, except it were given to him of the Father” (John 6:65). Here is the witness of him who knows what is in man and who knows the Father as the Father knows him. And it is to the effect that it is a moral and spiritual impossibility for a man to come unto him except by the free gift from the Father in his secret and efficacious drawing.
Much ado has been made (both on this blog and elsewhere) about the recent “anti-cessationist” comments of a popular Seattle-based pastor. I don’t desire to enter a war of words, or become embroiled in an online controversy. But I do hope to make a helpful contribution to the conversation.
Over the last few years, I’ve enjoyed investigating the historical record regarding the charismatic gifts, especially the gift of tongues. And I can only hope that the above pastor, and his co-author, will treat the material responsibly in their upcoming work on the subject. (Who knows, maybe they’d be open to a two-views book?)
I would also hope that, in the process of critiquing the cessationist position, the authors do not create a straw man version of cessationism. (I’ll admit that, based on what I’ve read so far, I’m afraid the straw man is already under construction.)
Nonetheless, in an effort to dismantle a fallacious misrepresentation before it is built, I offer the following four clarifications about what cessationism is not:
* * * * *
1. Cessationism is not anti-supernatural, nor does it deny the possibility of miracles.
Strange Fire, part of Grace to You’s Truth Matters conference series, evaluates the doctrines, claims, and practices of the modern charismatic movement, and affirms the true Person and ministry of the Holy Spirit.