James Dunn\'s Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Baptisim in the Holy Spirit

James Dunn and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

James Dunn's book: The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a traditional exegesis of the religious phenomenon which has been relegated in modern times to the Pentecostal Christian churches. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was prophesied in the Old Testament (OT) writings. The experience was demonstrated in special circumstances among OT leaders, but the prophet Joel promised that in the latter days, this experience would be available and present across the entire church. Joel promised that:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit. (Joel 2.28-29 ASV)

In the second chapter of Acts, Peter's sermon to the assembled crowds quotes this passage, and he says that:

Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words. 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day; 16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:

And it shall be in the last days, saith God,

I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh:

And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

And your young men shall see visions,

And your old men shall dream dreams:

18

Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days

Will I pour forth of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2.14b-18)

Peter identified, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the baptism in the Holy Spirit which those in the upper room had just experienced was meant for the entire church. His words engage the promise of Joel, and apply them to the Pentecostal baptism in the Holy Spirit. Peter's application is confirmation that this experience is meant for the entire church, and it is meant to be part of the universal Christian experience. The power with which the early church preached the gospel, performed miracles, and brought converts into the kingdom is directly linked to the experience of Pentecost throughout the book of Acts. Dunn's book, which presents a theological and scholarly look at these events, missed the importance of these events in defining the transformational role of the church in today's society. His position is one of theological exegesis rather than dynamic experience of the holy spirits power.

This paper will examine the scriptural basis for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and compare it to Dunn's classic work on the same. Dunn approached the subject from a dispensational and existential philosophy, so many of his conclusions are subject to reconsideration under the full light of scripture. His questionable belief regarding the deity and messianic identity of Christ is also reason to question the conclusions he draws. Finally, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the churches experience of the same will be compared and contrasted to the eastern Christian views of the theology of the Holy Spirit. Vladimir Lossky's work "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church will provide the basis for this comparison.

The Debate over the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Evangelicals believe that believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but there is debate over whether all believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist prophesied that while he baptized with water, the one who would come after him (Jesus) would "baptize...with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matt. 3:11). Jesus reminded his disciples of this prophecy before he ascended, telling them to wait for this baptism in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4-8). It was important in light of the responsibility to bring the gospel to the entire world (Act 1.4-5) that the early church "Wait for the gift (of the Holy Spirit) which my Father has promised, and about which you have heard me speak. For John baptized with Water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" This occurred on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). The question which has troubled theologians and Christians alike is whether all believers now receive this Spirit baptism when they believe, or should believers seek to be baptized in the Spirit as an experience subsequent to salvation?

This debate has carried with is the unspoken corollary which needs to be addressed in order to clearly evaluate the scriptural record. In Christ, all men, women, slave, free, Jew or gentiles are forever equal. Yet, in experience, there are some who do participate in the experience of the Holy Spirit baptism, and some who do not. In discussing this issue, the related underlying question is "Well, if some do have it, and some don't, then some Christians must by "closer to God" or "more right" than others. This emotional-based value judgment has clouded an effective discussion of this experience for centuries. Each believer is on an individual walk with Christ. Those who have been a part of the Christian traditions for decades are no more favored by God than those who have just begun their journey. So the presence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in come Christians lives is in no way an indictor of their "preferred status" in the kingdom of god. It is a part of their experience, and the presence of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If in God's plan the baptism and ministry of the Holy Spirit is only for a few, then Christians need to accept the differences as part of their ministry in the Body of Christ (See 1 Cor. 12.12-41) But if the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is intended for the entire church, and was intended to empower the church to carry forth the ministry of the gospel to the ends of the earth, perhaps the absence of the baptism across a majority of Christendom is reason for the anemic success of the gospel in the modern era.

The classic or traditional Protestant position, embraced by many evangelicals, is that people are baptized with the Spirit when they believe. This position argues that the New Testament does not distinguish between the act of receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit. All believers are "marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit," which is "the pledge of our inheritance towards redemption" (Eph. 1:13-14). All who believe are "baptized into one body" by "one Spirit" and are "made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). If one is not baptized by the Spirit, this view maintains, that person is not part of Christ's body and does not drink of the Spirit. Either a person has the Holy Spirit, in which case he or she is saved, or a person does not have the Holy Spirit, in which case "Christ does not belong to [him]" (Rom. 8:9).

This position argues that the equating of Spirit baptism with conversion is found throughout Acts. True, the disciples had to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit for forty days, even though they already believed in Jesus. But this is only because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given (cf. John 7:38-39). Since Pentecost, this position maintains, the Holy Spirit comes immediately when a person believes. On the day of Pentecost, Peter promised his audience that all who would repent and be baptized would receive what they had just witnessed the disciples receive: They would "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). When Cornelius and his household heard the gospel for the first time, they believed and "the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word" (Acts 10:44). Similarly, when the disciples of John the Baptist first heard Paul preach the gospel, "the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 19:6). The fact that there is no interval in these episodes between believing and receiving the Holy Spirit, and the fact that the Holy Spirit falls on everyone at the same time (none were left out who were not yet "ready" for the full baptism) demonstrate that being baptized in the Spirit is not an experience subsequent to salvation.

However, this position does not adequately explain the events in which there is an apparent interval between people believing and receiving the Spirit. When Philip preaches to the Samaritans in Acts 8, Luke says that many Samaritans "believed Philip," including the sorcerer Simon (8:11-13). Yet they did not receive the Holy Spirit until John and Peter came from Jerusalem and prayed over them (8:17). According to adherents of the classic Protestant position, the Acts 8 episode should not be taken as normative for all believers. The interval took place because God wanted to demonstrate that the Samaritan mission had apostolic authority behind it. Hence, God wanted the Spirit to come as Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans (8:17). In any event, the apparent interval between belief and Spirit baptism in this narrative should not be taken as normative for Christians, according to the classic Protestant position. To insist on such is to place reasoning into the scripture that is present in modern day denominationalism and theology, but not present in the text itself.

Other evangelicals maintain that the New Testament distinguishes between receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit. This perspective does not place the conversion event as synonymous with being baptized in the Holy Spirit. In John20.22 Jesus appeared to the gathered disciples, which included apostles and others, breathed on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit." At this time, Jesus gives the believing community the Holy Spirit. Yet, days later when he ascend to the heavens, he tells the disciples to wait for the promised power and gift of the Holy Spirit before beginning the mission of spreading the gospel. According to Jesus words, we can understand that:

The baptism of the Spirit occurs at some point subsequent to salvation,

It is different that receiving the holy spirit upon conversion and faith in Christ.

The spirit baptism is for the purpose of empowering believers for ministry.

Hence, Jesus told his disciples that they would "receive power when the Holy Spirit" came upon them and that they would be his "witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). The disciples already believed in Jesus and thus already had the Holy Spirit present in their lives, for no one can authentically confess Jesus as Lord without the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). But they were not yet empowered for ministry.

A closer look at the scriptures containing Jesus' commands to wait, and the purpose of the Spirit Baptism reveal the following.

"I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed (enduo) with power (dunamis) from on high." (Luke 24:49)

"Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water (hudati), but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (en pneumati hagio).... But you will receive power (dunamis) when the Holy Spirit comes on (epiechomai) you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:4, 5, 8; see 11:15-16) (Wilson, online)

A closer examination of some of the words gives clarity as to 'why' the spirit baptism is meant as a universal Christian experience.

"Clothe (KJV 'endue') with power." The verb is Greek enduo, "dress, clothe." This may be similar to the analogy of baptism, the idea of covering completely with. The word translated "power" is Greek dunamis, from which we get our word "dynamite." The church was to be covered with power in order to carry out the mission of the Gospel.

"Receive power." The verb here is the extremely common Greek word lambano, "to receive." The emphasis here is not on voluntary acceptance here but upon possessing it, as if being handed a package.

"Come upon." The Greek verb is eperchomai, a compound word that means "come over or upon." It often referred to unpleasant happenings or to an enemy attack. But here it used of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples. The word suggests something out of our control that happens to us. Spirit baptism is wholly in God's power and at his time and pleasure.

"Pour out." The Spirit is "poured out" upon believers (Acts 2:17-18, 2:33, 10:45). Similar to the water baptism analogy, in pouring the water is in a vessel above the believer, and is saturating the believer with the Holy Spirit. (Wilson, online)

Thus, the infilling with the spirit that happens at the time of conversion is distinctively different than the "pouring over, or immersion in the Holy Spirit" which is described here. The "baptism of the Holy Spirit" involves being covered with, immersed in, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

This position argues that the distinction between conversion and spirit baptism is found throughout Acts as well as in some of Paul's epistles. For example, in his first sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter commands his audience to "repent, and be baptized" and then "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). The gift is promised after repentance and obedience. In Acts 6, the apostles tell the Christians in Jerusalem to find "seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom," to help with some of the tasks of ministry (6:3). According to advocates of this position, this implies a distinction between those who are "full of the Spirit" and others who are not. The distinction is further shown in Paul's dialogue with the disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus. Before he knew that these disciples had not received the full gospel, Paul asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?" (Acts 19:2). The question does not make sense, defenders of this position argue, if all who believe automatically receive the full empowering of the Holy Spirit. Paul later wrote to the church at Ephesus, encouraging them not to "get drunk with wine...but be filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). How could Paul command this if all believers are automatically filled with the Spirit?

The distinctiveness of Spirit baptism is also clearly evidenced in Acts 8, according to advocates of this position. They argue that the attempts to explain away the interval between faith and Holy Spirit baptism in this passage are forced. More to the point, advocates of the view that Spirit baptism is subsequent to salvation ask, How could Philip or the apostles have considered the possibility that the Samaritans had not been filled with the Spirit if being filled with the Spirit is synonymous with conversion?

For all these reasons, advocates of the view that Holy Spirit baptism is subsequent to salvation encourage all believers to seek to be filled with or baptized with the Holy Spirit. Only when this occurs will they be fully empowered to carry out the work of the kingdom.

James Dunn's expositions

Dunn's book has become the standard reply by non-Pentecostals and non-charismatics. The book was written in 1970 and has since become standard reading in many evangelical colleges. As such, this book became standard reading in many of the divinity schools before the modern "charismatic movement" became common place across the American continent. Even those who do not ascribe to Dunn hold to his theological approach in explaining Spirit-Baptisms in Acts.

Dunn begins his approach to the spirit baptism with this statement:

The core of religion is religious experience. ( Lewis, 1959) If a man must say that he cannot find God in the reality of his own present life . . . then his belief in God will be a theoretical or dogma; and however great the force with which he clings to this belief, it will not be true faith, for faith can be only the recognition of the activity of God in his own life. (Bultmann, 1958) From this starting point, Dunn explores the topic of the spirits baptism. But is approach has the scale tilted toward the existential and dispensational theologies which were popular in his day. As such, he quickly departs from traditional theology, and even departs from orthodox Christology. Dunn begins his examination by posing the question "What was Jesus experience of God." Dunn used this as a dock on the edge of a deep sea from which to launch his own research vessel. However, his approached Jesus' experience of god is in the same manner he would measure his own experience of God. In his traditional existential approach, Dunn is led into considering Jesus' experience through Dunn's perspective, and he sidesteps the important issue of Jesus deity.

Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. His experience of God was different than every other person's because his experience of communion and community with the Father was one of perfect oneness. He was tempted like every man, but his experience was one of perfect union. Dunn suggests the Jesus had to grow into the knowledge and revelation that he was inspired by God, and that he didn't take on the role of Son of God, or his messianic destiny until his baptism at the Jordan. (Dunn, 1975) This perspective limits Dunn's understanding of Jesus relationship to the Father to the level to which it parallels our own. As such, Dunn's evaluation of Jesus' experience of the Holy Spirit is also distorted.

Dunn skirts the issue for a number of pages, but then expresses that he does not believe that Jesus was in fact the divine god-man that John's Gospel clearly identifies him. Dunn believes that Jesus experience of God, and his relationship to the Father as a son, as a unique divine instrument, and as a person with a unique purpose was "probably a fundamental element is his self-consciousness out of which his other-based convictions about himself and mission arose." (Dunn, 1975, p. 39) Dunn again sidesteps the issue of Christ's deity as he discusses Jesus and the power of exorcism. He states that "Jesus consciousness of spiritual power, the visible evidence of the power of God flowing through him to overcome other superhuman power, evil power, to restore and make whole" (Ibid, p. 47) is the source of Jesus supernatural power. According to Dunn, it is not the fact that Jesus is divine that he displays this supernatural authority over demons, disease, and the natural world, It is because Jesus has a clear understanding of his conscious connection to spiritual power. Again, Dunn falls prey to the existential paradigm that there is nothing real outside of our personal experience. While true faith and a living relationship with God is founded in a personal experience with the Divine, as Dunn states on the opening page of his book, true faith is also a function of holding to the truths of scripture which lie outside of our ability to personally experience them, such as the deity of Christ, and the sure promise of his return.

For these reasons, Dunn's exegesis of the spirit baptism needs to be held in high suspicion as to their alignment with an orthodox interpretation of scriptures. Dunn, who believed that the deity of Christ was a doctrine evolved through the writings of the early church and not an attribute of Jesus himself, may not be a faithful messenger for other biblical doctrines. Dunn limits his evaluation to the understanding of what men can do to reach upward toward God, while the New Testament incarnation was necessary because man cannot reach upward to God. Men cannot reach God by their own means. For this reason, God became flesh and walked among us, in order to lead us to God. How or why Dunn's work has become the standard for non-Pentecostal and much evangelical denomination in light of his anti-biblical beliefs regarding Christ is a question that will have to be answered at another time.

In his book, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Dunn proceeds through a systematic evaluation of the texts traditionally used by Pentecostals to argue that the spirit baptism is a separate and distinct event from conversion. Dunn begins with a short history of the charismatic movement, beginning in the early 1900's. From the Azusa Street revival of 1906, the appearance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit began to make their way back into traditional Christendom, until in the middle 20th century, Pentecostalism was seen as the "third wave" of Christianity, after Catholicism and Protestantism. Dunn seems to agree with the position that the spirit baptism is a "second work of grace . . . A deliverance from sin . . . Or an empowerment for service (Dunn, 1970, p. 2-3) These are the popular descriptions given by those involved in the Pentecostal movement at the time of his writing. But he mistakenly takes the doctrine one step further than the scriptures delineate. He says that the spirit baptism is the proof of faith, and the spirit baptism, and its proof of speaking in tongues will be evident in all believers. Dunn uses his existential paradigm to create this theorem.

Faith demand baptism as its expression;

Baptism demand faith for its validity.

The gift of the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues) presupposed faith as it's condition;

Faith is shown to be genuine only by the gift of the Spirit. (Dunn, 1970, p. 228)

Had Dunn allowed the scriptures to interpret themselves, rather than attempting to force them into his existential mindset, Dunn may have stopped theorizing before taking such an unbiblical, unorthodox position.

Dunn's evaluation of the Scriptural basis for the Doctrine of the Spirit Baptism.

The common NT testament events used in the discussion of the spirit baptism are:

1. The Miracle of Pentecost

2. The Riddle of Samaria

3. The Conversion of Paul

4. The conversion of Cornelius

5. The Disciples at Ephesus.

These different events create a quandary for theologians who wish to put the spirit baptism into a comfortable, measurable, predictable doctrinal box. The theologian, Dunn included, wants to answer the question of how this supernatural event can be categorized and fit into the churches list of doctrines and experiences. The difficulty is that each of these events presents a different set of circumstances surrounding the conversion, water baptism, and spirit baptism of the believers. Only a biblically based theology will satisfy the questions which these situations describe.

In the miracle of Pentecost, Peter and the other disciples, (appx. 120) are together in the upper room when the spirit baptism occurs. This group is composed men and women, not just the apostles, therefore the spirit baptism is not meant only for the apostles. This group is already converted and baptized believers in Christ. Therefore the spirit baptism is a separate event from conversion. When Peter preached to the crowd, he identified that the received gift of the Spirit is fulfillment of the Prophet Joel (Joel 2.28). He further prophetically states that this gift is meant for all who believe.

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise (of Joel) is for you and your children and for all who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2.38-9)

When comparing this event to the second text, the event of Samaria follow the same path which Peter preached would happen. The Samarians heard the message, they believed and were baptized. Sometime later, the apostles came from Jerusalem, laid their hands on the new believers and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no contradiction or riddle if we allow the scriptures to speak for themselves. The manifestation of the Spirit occurred when the men and women committed their lives to Christ. Many have argued that the separation of these two events must be due to the fact that the Samarians were not "truly converted" and like Simon the sorcerer, they were false converts until hearing Peter and John's preaching. This assumption does not find support in the text.

The conversion of Paul is the only one of these events that presents a question. Paul's conversion is not followed closely by a record of the spirit baptism, nor is his baptism recorded in the book of Acts at all. Paul wrote in Corinthians that he was glad to speak in tongues more than all the Corinthian church members, but the actual event when he received this gift is not recorded in the scriptural text. If Dunn's conclusion were correct, that the only evidence of true faith was the speaking in tongues, then after Paul was baptized, and began preaching in the temple, he was not converted. The impossible nature of this conclusion demonstrates that Dunn's conclusion must also be incorrect.

A correct view of the next two events which reads record for what it says, and does not attempt to place limiting conditions on the events in order to get the scripture to fit a desired theology puts the event of spirit baptism into its complete, and clear focus. The conversion of Cornelius is the first gentile conversion story. He calls for peter, and after hearing the gospel, the Holy Spirit falls on them "just as it had fallen on the group assembled at Pentecost. Then Cornelius and his family were baptized. These three event are inseparably attached to each other, but they cannot be regulated to a structured order because the only precondition for both baptisms, water and spirit, is faith, and faith is a personal, internal commitment of mind, spirit and will to follow the teachings of Christ. If there were an electrical diode implanted in every person's forehead that lit when the person had made the genuine commitment to repent and receive Christ as Lord and Savior, then the process would be more measurable. But the genuine faith is the determining factor of when a person is ready to be baptized. The first baptism, of water, is an outward sign of the person's commitment to Christ. The second baptism, of the spirit, is God's stamp of acceptance of the saving faith that is present, and the empowerment of the believer to begin to evangelize the world. Cornelius "diode went off" before the apostles realized, and god's stamp of approval on their commitment and conversion was a sign to the apostles that the gospel was not to be limited to the Jewish nation any longer.

The final events with the Ephesians church fit comfortably and completely into this understanding of these events. The Ephesian church believed the gospel, and received John's baptism of repentance from sins as a sign that they chose to follow Christ. When Paul arrived and discovered that the group had not received the spirit baptism, then quickly surrenders to his teaching, and receives the spirits gift.

Dunn spent considerable time in the Greek text, in order to ferret out whether the Luke considered this group to be genuine disciples of Jesus, or rather unconverted disciples of John the Baptist. The Greek is unclear either way. It is unlikely that Greek citizens living so removed from Israel would be followers of an eccentric, martyred Jewish prophet. The beginning of Acts 19 identifies these men as disciples, baptized under John's baptism of repentance toward following Christ. We must accept this description, and not bend our interpretation of scripture in order to fit our prejudices. The facts of this event are no different than the spirit baptism events of the other 4 passages if we allow scripture to interpret itself, and then build our theology not on human understanding, but on the revealed Word.

It is disappointing that Dunn's Seminole work regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit is built on a distorted foundation of existential understanding of God's work in men's lives. God is not limited to our understanding of Him. He is able to break through our understanding at any time, as He did with Paul, and brings us to a new, and more complete revelation of our lives, purposes and the doctrines which are part of our Christian life. This understanding, that is built upon a faith in God's interactions in the lives of men, rather than upon our understanding of what we see of God, that can become the cornerstone of true faith, as Dunn quotes in the premise of his book. But when the understanding is based upon men, and our ability to decipher God's efforts, we eliminate the purpose of Christ's incarnation, and we limit our ability to walk in his power.

The Eastern Christian Church's understanding of the Holy Spirit

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds the subject of the holy spirits work on our lives as a must less quantified and measured process than the Western church. During the years immediately after the western Christian traditions separated themselves from the east, the western church found itself descending into the Dark Ages. During this time, it became necessary for Christian church to define itself and defend itself from the northern Germanic tribes which held no religion. The political and social collapse of Europe caused a constriction of religions influence on society at large. As a result, western Christendom also sank into a deepening depression which the east never faced. The east continued to hold onto the traditions of the early church theologians and were able to practice them combined with a personal experience of the working of the Holy Spirit is daily life. Christians in the West were worried about surviving the feudal wars, black plague, and other social difficulties which saturated Europe. This parting of ways facilitated the differing viewpoints.