treatment of current debate about Spirit-baptism does not question the authenticity of the experience and its Christian character. It is accepted that there are fraudulent occurrences and spurious experiences, but these are not seen to any significant level in the various currents of the Christian church's life. On the contrary though, many leaders of movements whose principal emphasis has been Spirit-baptism have shown all the fruit of Christian character and have contributed greatly to a real evangelistic growth in the Christian church.

I have grouped the Neo-Pentecostal view with that of the classic Pentecostal because of the degree of similarity. An examination of the literature in this field makes one aware that there are gravitational-centres of thinking that allow one to group theological viewpoints under certain headings, yet equally in practice, there is often no hard line between the various positions.

Pentecostal view-point is represented in a number of Christian denominations. It holds to an event-centred doctrine of subsequence, coupled to a doctrine of initial evidence. 

An example of this is the position of the Full Gospel Church of God in Southern Africa, according to which the baptism of the Holy Spirit is –

"distinct from, in addition to, and subsequent to the experience of the new birth" (Constitution 1967:24).

The initial evidence of Spirit-baptism being –

"the physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Holy Spirit gives them [believers] utterance" (Ibid.).

Arising from the Pentecostal movement's influence in main-line churches, the Neo-Pentecostal or Charismatic interpretation of Spirit-baptism holds in the main to these same two key tenets of classic Pentecostalism, though often with less dogmatism.

This doctrine of two stages in Christian experience is largely a product of the history of the Pentecostal movement.

The initial-evidence doctrine arose from the attempt to explain the prominence of glossolalia in the 'experience' of Spirit-baptism. Neo-Pentecostalism has been less dogmatic on the issue of tongues than many of the classic Pentecostals however.

The Scriptures that are used to give a biblical basis for this view are drawn mainly from Acts. Here there is a little firmer ground than there is for the two stage concept of Christian experience. Glossolalia were obviously significantly associated with the Holy Spirit's initialising of the believer into the new covenant of Christ, as illustrated at Pentecost (Acts 2) and in Cornelius' home (Acts 10), and also probably in Samaria (Acts 8) and Ephesus (Acts 19).

Neo-Pentecostalism has become more open to other 'signs' of Spirit-baptism but necessarily still looks to some outward evidence for its event-centred idea of Spirit-baptism.

the infiltration of charismatic influences and experiences into the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran communions a sacramental interpretation of Spirit-baptism evolved as an attempt to accommodate the experience within their existing theological frames of reference. The Pentecostal frame of interpretation (subsequence and initial evidence) was rejected. The experience became largely explained as the 'release' of the sacramental-grace that had been given in infant baptism. It was thus not so much something received as an experience of discovering the Spirit within, and so it was simply a 'renewal'. It became known as the 'renewal-movement' in the Anglican communion and in many areas the beneficial spiritual results, expressed in greater involvement and zeal among the laity, made an accommodation of this charismatic movement an asset to the work of each particular communion, if it could be contained within its denominational theology.

Dr Lederle (previously of University of South Africa, Pretoria) observed that this theology of charismatic experience appears as tacked on (an unexpected appendix) to their doctrine of sacraments. In addition, it appears to ascribe a greater docility to the Holy Spirit, who seems to 'awaken' within and 'pour over' the believer some decades after baptism in infancy.

approach developed in contrast to the previous explanation of the charismatic phenomena. It saw no special connection of Spirit-baptism with sacraments and even rejected the idea of it being necessarily subsequent to Christian conversion.

This view identifies Spirit-baptism with the biblical expression – "filled with the Spirit". This now freed the concept from its difficult association with Christian initiation (conversion). Also, the problem of defining the experience as a single event is lessened, for the 'filling' could be understood as a process.

However, the difficulties that arise with this view are that whereas Spirit-baptism had an initiatory or entrance association, as water-baptism has, which is properly a one- time event, in contrast the idea of 'filling', which is in Scripture a repeated event, looses this initiatory idea and also carries practical ethical overtones of spiritual obedience. Norwegian Lutherans apparently tried to deal with this problem by attributing two different kinds of 'filling' or 'fullness' to the work of the Holy Spirit; namely, sanctification and giftedness.

It has been suggested that giving up the use of biblical terminology would help the attempt to find an adequate theological explanation, but this seems to miss the real point that the charismatic experience, if authentic, must be shown to be a proper part of authentic (biblical) Christianity.

A return to a more biblical understanding of Spirit-baptism as initiatory was enabled by describing the charismatic experience as a spiritual renewal. This view became very influential in a number of more traditional denominations. A personal charismatic event was seen as 'spiritual breakthrough', a 'crisis experience', which could be comfortably accommodated in this theological view.

It was an explanation that could link back to baptism and as such be seen as a deepening of the conversion experience. Any special link with 'tongues' was still a discomfort however. The idea of an initial evidence seems to have been replaced by the expectance of discovering or activating various kinds of giftedness.

Further thinking came to see, not a single Spirit-baptism, but several Spirit-baptisms, in the sense of Thomas Aquinas' idea of many "comings" of the Spirit. While it avoided the old event-centred thinking the genuineness of any and many spiritual experiences could thus be accommodated.

Yet the onset of an initial charismatic experience is, in practice, often seen as the 'gateway' to receiving or experiencing 'charisms'. Strong objection has, however, been raised to the concept of any post-conversion experience acting as the 'gateway' to special giftedness and an alternative view has been offered of seeing it rather as simply another spiritual development experience that enhances rather than initiating the believer's openness to spiritual gifts.

Lederle blames the cultural context of Western rationalism for hindering the properly normal experiential dimension of Christianity, while at the same time discounting the necessity for any heavy emotional encounters with God. It is an enlarged Christian devotional experience beyond the purely intellectual that is needed. As an academic he rejects, on the basis of biblical scholarship, any idea that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ceased with the apostles. With others, he sees the essential nature of the charismatic experience as neither a Spirit-baptism nor speaking in 'tongues', but a new openness to the full range of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to meet the needs of the Christian community.

Thus, the charismatic experience is simply the experience of the Holy Spirit. This is good, but it is no more than has been believed by the church throughout most of its history and does not explain the profound effect of the special prominence given to 'tongues' speaking in the charismatic movement.

it has sometimes been regarded as misleading to try and comprehend the charismatic experience in biblical terms I believe that a re-examination of the biblical data is most useful, not to validate an experience, but to find a more accurate framework for our thinking.

The term 'baptism', concerning the Holy Spirit, was coined by John the Baptist, according to the Scripture record (Matt.3). He used it as an analogy of the Messiah's ministry from the focal act of his own ministry (baptism). Therefore, when Christ's words in Acts 1:5 refer to John's baptism it is in this sense of John's initiation of Christ's ministry. Likewise, the ministry of the disciples would be initiated by baptism, but now by a baptism of the Spirit.

context has too often been ignored and Christ's reference to John's baptism has been read simply as a water metaphor for the Holy Spirit. But, that interpretation would have to disregard the frequent practice of baptism by Jesus' disciples themselves during Christ's ministry, to a level that eventually even exceeded John's own practice (Jn.4:1). If the general practice of baptism among believers as an analogy was the point, it would have needed no special reference to the deceased John the Baptist's act. It is however, to Christ's own baptism, the initiation of His ministry, that this baptism-analogy of Acts 1:5 reaches back. The mention of John's baptism of Christ again later in this same chapter of Acts to mark the start of Christ's ministry confirms this.

insistence of many that Spirit-baptism is another expression for regeneration is largely to avoid the idea of 'subsequence'; an idea that naturally arises if one accepts Spirit-baptism's special relation to initiation of ministry. The frequent use made by Pentecostals of the doctrine of 'subsequence' in the history of the first disciples has often clouded (and loaded) this issue.

These first disciples were unique! They bridged the transition between old and new covenant in the unfolding of God's redemption. They lived in the overlap, and as such, although unique, exemplify experientially the distinct components of this special working of God's grace in the unique acts of Jesus Christ. Note that they were followers of Christ and enjoyed right-standing before God (justified, Jn.15:3) before the new life imparting act of the resurrection of Christ. Paul points to the resurrection of Christ as the act of God which granted new spiritual life to us all (Eph.2:5-6). Christ's action affirmed this in His 'breathing' on the disciples (imparting life as their second Adam – I Cor.15:46) on the resurrection day (Jn.20:22).

the first disciples already shared with Abraham and all true believers the justification by faith that has always been the key element of salvation in all ages. It was the resurrection of Jesus Christ that introduced a new and awesome spiritual work in which the spirit of the believer is made personally alive to God. Theology may philosophise on the issue of which came first, regeneration or justification, but the evidences are clear in these prototype Christians.

In the same manner also, the baptism of the Spirit, given on the first Pentecost of the church, was a distinctly separate experience to these first disciples. And it is still now an unrepeatable event for the church, in terms of Christ's teaching about the coming of the Spirit as His substitute in relation to these first disciples. That Jesus Himself should call the coming of the Spirit a 'baptism' distinctly carries the idea of initiation, but in this context it is an analogy of His initiation in baptism, that is, of His ministry. The day of Pentecost experience was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, prophesied by the Baptist, which inaugurated-the-ministry of these believers as His church.

In support of this interpretation is the reported "exceeding joy" of these disciples after the ascent of Jesus prior to Pentecost (Lk.24:53). Clearly, an inward change had already occurred before the day of Pentecost, that transformed their perceptions in spite of the departure of their Messiah. They were now a "born-again" people. Yet, the need for the day of Pentecost's spiritual event was still of no lesser importance. 

three components (justification, regeneration and Spirit-baptism) are vital parts of the composite reality of our New Covenant salvation. They are, for all believers of subsequent times, an intrinsic part of simply being in Christ. Hopefully, no Christian theology would accept that a believer today is justified before God and inwardly regenerated at different times. Even so, the gift of the Spirit is also a distinct, but simultaneous and integral part of the common Christian identity.

By the very nature of the qualifying work of the Cross there can be no gradation, no segmenting of this reality into various levels of worthiness in the recipient. The gift of the Spirit to these first New Covenant believers, portrayed as baptism in its initialising the church's ministry, is the fitting climax of all that is contained in the various works of God in Christ for us. All that follows for us is but the outflow of what has-been-done.

profoundly then, Paul declares that in parallel to the sexual union of a man and woman, "he who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:17). This spiritual union of the human spirit with the Divine Spirit is thus at the heart of the new covenant in Christ. It is not an add-on extra for the charismatically inclined.

If the doctrine of subsequence is now out-of-place, what are we to do with the idea of initial evidence? Does not the post-conversion second works of grace, witnessed to by so many in history, contradict the idea of an initial composite-nature of Christian conversion, in spite of what the Bible may teach?

Here a distinction needs to be drawn between the objective act of God towards us in Jesus Christ, and the subjective appropriation of His variegated grace, which is progressive.

Human responsibility to respond to this grace provides it's proof, it's subjective evidence! Potential, like money in the bank deposited to us by the love of a faithful father, must be appropriated by faith, as much as a signed cheque lays claim to a legally available resource.

It is faith that seeks to know God and so discovers His fulness in Christ.
It is faith that obeys God in the knowledge of His gracious beneficence.
It is faith!

---

Copyright © Lloyd Thomas 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
Feel free to copy, as long as this full copyright notice is included.

FOR A ROUGH TRANSLATION SIMPLY CHOOSE A LANGUAGE