AN EVALUATION OF JOHN R. W. STOTT'S
AND FREDERICK D. BRUNER'S INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE BAPTISM AND FULLNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

George A. Turner

Asbury Theological Seminary

John R. W. Stott

The booklet by Stott contains "the substance of an address" by the author to the Islington Clerical Conference on January 7, 1964, "subsequently expanded for publication." After noting the revived interest among churches in the ministry of the Holy Spirit and stressing the need of the Spirit's power, the author points out (1) that one should be governed by Scripture alone and not by the experience of individuals or groups; (2) that historical precedents described in Acts should not be considered normative today (rather one should seek guidance in the Gospels and Epistles); and (3) that his presentation is practical rather than academic in purpose.

While observing that today is the "dispensation of the Holy Spirit," Stott stresses that fullness of the Holy Spirit is a universal privilege (p. 15). At Pentecost the 120 who were baptized with the Spirit prior to Peter's sermon, were previously regenerated, but the same blessing was given to 3000 previously unregenerated hearers soon after. The latter, rather than the 120, are typical and the precedent for us. Although at Samaria the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to believers in Jesus, this was a special case. The presence of apostles was necessitated by the historical schism between Jews and Samaritans. Furthermore, he reports, the Book of Acts should not be used as a basis for doctrine since it contains no consistent doctrine of the Holy Spirit (p. 18). However, he inconsistently cites the 3000 converts at Pentecost (less the 120) as typical of Christians today in that they were converted and filled with the Holy Spirit simultaneously. In Ephesus the "disciples" were not Christians, but disciples of John who knew nothing of either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Hence their baptism with the Holy Spirit was their initiation into the Christian Church and not a second stage in their spiritual growth (p. 19).

He apparently assumes that Cornelius was not a believer before his reception of the Spirit's baptism and he ignores Peter's summary of the event as "purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). All seven references to the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; I Cor. 12:13) he finds to be initiatory, experienced by all Christians at conversion. He ignores passages in which the "gift" of the Holy Spirit is designated as the "promise of the Father" (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1 :4; 2:33; 38; 39; cf. 1:8; 2:4; 18) and given to His disciples who are said to be "clean" (Jn. 13:10; 15:3) and their names "written in heaven" (Lk. 10:20). He also ignores Johannine passages in which the Holy Spirit is apparently given to believers only (Jn. 14:26; 15:26; 16:715; 20:22). His stress lies rather on the passage in I Corinthians 12: 13 where Christian unity is emphasized: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. . . and have been all made to drink of one Spirit." Since there are four parts in baptism, he argues, (the baptizer, the recipients, the medium and the purpose) Jesus must be the baptizer, here as in the other six passages, because the Spirit could not be both the agent administering the baptism and also the element or medium in which the baptism occurs (pp. 2427). Since I Corinthians 12: 13 clearly applies to all Christians and, since it is consistent with the other six references to the baptism with the Holy Spirit, he concludes that in each instance the baptism of the Spirit is administered initially to all who become Christians thereby and that no further "second blessing" is to be sought.

To the objection that most Christians give no evidence of having been baptized with the Holy Spirit and power, he says simply that they have failed to seek and keep the fullness and the Spirit after regeneration. To those who say that they have received a great crisis experience subsequent to regeneration, he admits the truth of their testimony but adds that these are exceptions, not the rule, and that these persons should not urge other believers to seek any further special gifts or enduements of the Spirit. Beyond further hungering and thirsting for righteousness there remains only "the resurrection and glorification of our bodies" in the Christian's spiritual future (p. 29). The evidences for the Spirit's indwelling he correctly insists are moral, not miraculous: "Be filled," sing, give thanks and be submissive (Eph. 5:1821). Progress in Christian living is seen in terms of "enlightenment, knowledge, faith, experience" (Eph. 1:1519). He concludes by urging a continued hungering and thirsting for righteousness. His argument is most plausible when contrasting the events in Acts with the exhortations in the Epistles. However, even here he is somewhat arbitrary in downgrading the Gospels and Acts as sources of doctrine. He is least convincing when ignoring the many texts which urge the believer to dedicate the entire person to the sway of the Holy Spirit's purity and power (Rom. 6:12; 12:13; Phil. 3: 15; Heb. 6: 1; II Cor. 7: 1; I Pet. 1: 16 and others). Its chief practical effect appears to be that of discouraging evangelicals, among either holiness people or Pentecostals, from seeking anything very specific. Frederick D. Bruner

This welldocumented volume is the outcome of the author's graduate studies at Princeton and a doctorate at the University of Hamburg. Bruner, a United Presbyterian missionary, is now Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Seminary in the Philippines. His interest in Pentecostalism is more than academic; during his research he faced personally the question, "Did I want a heart knowledge of the Pentecostal gift?" The resultant theological essay benefits from this dual concern for academic soundness and spiritual certitude.

The study begins with a thorough analysis of Pentecostalism as a 20th century phenomenon. The author traces its origins to the evangelical revival in England. He concludes that prior spiritual life movements are significant, to the extent that they influenced John Wesley:

Methodism is the mother of the l9thcentury American holiness movement which, in turn, bore 20thcentury Pentecostalism.... Pentecostalism is primitive Methodism's extended incarnation. . . inheriting Wesley's experiential theology and revivalism's experiential methodology. Pentecostalism went out into an experience hungry world and found a response (pp. 37, 39)

Charles G. Finney is credited with being the major human factor in making revivalism the "major religion" in l9thcentury America. Wesley's theology and Finney's revivalism therefore merged in the American Holiness Movement and subsequently in modern Pentecostalism (p. 42).

Bruner traces, in a relatively objective and thorough manner, the beginnings of the tongues movement from Kansas (1901) to Los Angeles (1906) to North Europe (1909), to South America and back to the NeoPentecostalism in some of the mainline churches today. Today the charismatic movement is centered at the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship (Los Angeles), the Assemblies of God (Springfield, Missouri,) and the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). The Assemblies adhere to Reformation theology and two works of grace, while the Church of God is more in the Arminian Wesleyan tradition but favors three stages in the quest for perfection (con version, sanctification and the baptism with the Holy Spirit).

Bruner then examines the biblical basis for the doctrines emphasized by the Pentecostals. He finds that, as in Wesley and the Holiness Movement, it is not sufficient to receive Christ by faith, but that in addition the believer needs to be filled with the Spirit. While the Holiness Movement welcomed spontaneous physical expressions of joy (shouting, etc.), the Pentecostals demanded physical evidence of divine blessing (tongues), (p. 76). Primitive Methodism made feeling the witness of the fullness of the Spirit, notes Bruner, while modern Pentecostalism makes glossolalia the basis of assurance. Both have similar conditions for the baptism of the Spirit: regeneration, obedience, confession of need, consecration and faith leading to assurance. The chief difference is that Pentecostalism insists that speaking with tongues is the invariable physical evidence of the initial baptism of the Holy Spirit, distinct from water baptism.

After examining the alleged biblical and historical basis for Pentecostal belief and practice, Bruner undertakes a thorough and critical examination of their validity. In general he rejects as "good works" all conditions other than faith for receiving all of God's grace. Any terms which modify faith such as "fullness" he considers worse than useless. He believes any conditions for receiving the fullness of the Spirit are equivalent to the magical incantations of Simon of Samaria: "both seek beyond faith to get a hold of supernatural powers" (p. 183). All of the "conditions" deemed necessary for this experience: relinquishing known sin, hungering and thirsting for righteous ness, seeking with the "whole heart", are termed "works" which imperil

simple faith alone (sola fides). Repeatedly his indebtedness to Luther and Calvinistic convictions are in evidence. The Spirit's coming, he writes, is "not conditional." Confession of sin and repentance is equated with "works" which only hinder simple faith. Repentance is "not something to be done," it is God's gift which enables a person to decide to be baptized (cf. Acts 2:38; 11: 18), (p. 166). Man is passive; it is all of grace. Again and again he belabors Pentecostals for seeking more than Christ's forgiveness at conversion and for insisting that the believer has some responsibility for meeting conditions (repentance, obedience, eagerness and the like). His criticism is not against Pentecostalism and the Holiness Movement alone, but includes evangelicals in the Reformed tradition. Thus, Harold John Ockenga is criticized for listing the conditions (confession, consecration, faith, obedience) necessary for the reception of the fullness of the Holy Spirit by the believer subsequent to his reception of Christ as Saviour (pp. 115, 116).

In spite of his efforts at thoroughness and relative objectivity, his insistence on faith alone places him, along with B. B. Warfield (Perfectionism), as viewing a second work of grace as not only superfluous but also actually perverting the gospel of grace alone. He rates Pentecostalism to be as subversive of the gospel of Christ as the legalism condemned in the Galatian letter, the asceticism at Colossal (Col. 2:1619), the Gnosticism reflected in I John, and the pseudo "spirituals" of the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor. 12:1; 14:37).

The purpose of the book would have been achieved far more effectively if Bruner had not weakened his case by exaggerating sola fides, by emphasizing texts supporting his position while ignoring many which do not, and for minimizing the necessity for spiritual discipline and aspiration for God's best which usually characterizes Christians who are in earnest. He stresses the objective nature of faith (it coincides with water baptism) (p. 281) and ignores the subjective factor implicit in Luther's emphasis on faith as "trust." For him a Christian is one who accepts Jesus as Lord and Saviour at water baptism and is simultaneously baptized with the Holy Spirit. He recognizes no distinction between a "nominal Christian" and one who has experienced the grace of the Lord Jesus (p. 275), no awareness of James' distinction between a "dead" faith and one which is verified by "works" (James 2:17).

Bruner insists that one should seek Christ and not the Holy Spirit as such, ignoring Jesus' encouraging His disciples to ask, seek and knock while assuring them that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13).

He is grossly unfair to Pentecostalism (and the Wesleyan tradition) by insisting that they teach that "the believer is required nothing less than the supreme accomplishmentthe removal of sinand this prior to the . . . full gift of the Holy Spirit" (p. 235). They teach, says he, that "the believer is responsible for the work of cleansing his heart, for the removal of all conscious sin . . . only then will the Holy Spirit be given" (p. 249). The Pentecostal message from which Bruner dissents is "In seeking the baptism with the Spirit we should always remember that the first requisite is to be cleansed from all known and conscious sin" (p. 235).

Actually Pentecostals (and Wesleyans) confess the lingering presence of indwelling sinful inclinations which hinder holiness, and ask for its removal and replacement by the fullness of the Spirit's presence and power; they do not presume to remove sin themselves. This is in accord with Bible messages which read, "If I regard [tolerate, protect] iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me" (Ps. 66:18); "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1); "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to . . . cleanse us . . ." (I Jn. 1:9); "Whosoever abides in Him does not sin" (I Jn.3:6).

Bruner correctly rebukes the Pentecostals for assuming that the sinner seeks Christ and pardon while the believer seeks the Spirit. He correctly insists that every believer who has Christ is born of the Spirit but he incorrectly fails to distinguish being born of the Spirit ("baptized" by the Spirit into the body of Christ), (I Cor. 12:13) and being filled and empowered by the Spirit (Lk. 24:49). He insists that if the believer has Christ there is nothing lacking in his Christian experience. He fails to recognize a distinction between being "in Christ" and being ''filled with the Spirit" although he does acknowledge that the apostles experienced fillings subsequent to Pentecost (p. 214).

He, like Luther, feels compelled to adhere to the concept of being simultaneously a saint and a sinner, hence is not an "evangelical" in the current usage of the term.

Bruner's view of water baptism is more Lutheran or Catholic than Calvinistic; more than a symbol, it is for him the vehicle which bestows Christ's fullness on the participant (p. 263). Accordingly, he criticizes the charismatics (and by inference the Holiness Movement) for emphasizing regeneration as the condition for subsequent water baptism. For him water baptism is also Spirit baptism and nothing specific is to be sought thereafter. He overlooks Romans 6: 11 where, after identification with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3), the believer is urged to "reckon himself dead indeed to sin," II Peter 1:10 where believers are urged to "give all diligence to make their calling and election sure," and the exhortation for believers to "press on to maturity" (Heb. 6:1).

He disagrees with K. Barth and E. Brunner (and perhaps with J. Wesley?) by insisting on the identification of water baptism with baptism with the Holy Spirit.

By his emphasis on the simultaneity of saving faith and water baptism he is at a loss to know how to assess infant baptism, but concludes tentatively that its retention is preferable to the alternatives.

An excellent bibliography is added, reflecting, as do the footnotes, acquaintance with works in German and French as well as in English. The volume is commendable in that footnotes are located on the relevant pages rather than gathered in the back. The inclusion of primary sources or "documents" adds much to the value of the book. The printing is carefully done and errors are few ("shame" on page 185 was probably meant to be "sham"). Negatively, the indented portions include both the author's ideas, of secondary importance, and also quotations from others with only quotation marks to distinguish them. To have the quotations alone in the indented paragraphs would facilitate reading and comprehension. The essay would have been improved if condensed and the many duplications reduced in number.

A more thorough study of glossolalia in the Corinthian and contemporary churches would have enhanced the value of the study. But Bruner was preoccupied with the principle of sola fides and other matters were subordinate.

His view toward the trust worthiness of the Gospel records is reflected in his judgment that the Johannine account of Jesus' bestowal of the Spirit an. 20:22) on the apostles is equivalent to the Pentecostal experience reported in Acts (p. 214). In other words, Luke and John disagree about Pentecost.

This volume serves as a reminder of the intimate historical association between Pentecostalism and the Holiness Movement. It contributes little to the debate over the "gift of tongues" and its relationship to contemporary phenomena and little to the question of the glossolalia in Acts and that in I Corinthians. As observed by a reviewer in The Scottish Journal of Theology, Pentecostalism has little to fear from Bruner's attack, because of his harping on the one string of sole fidism. But Bruner's study deserves to be taken seriously by any interested in the charismatic movement.

For those in the Wesleyan tradition both books have the wholesome effect of a reexamination of the exegetical and experiential bases of their position. Both present a welcome challenge to careful, responsible con textual exegesis (rather than relying on prooftexts). Among the areas in which further examination is needed are (1) the alleged failure of the Epistles to urge seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit, subsequent to being born of the Spirit, as LukeActs does; (2) whether the "tongues" in Acts are the same as the "tongues" at Corinth; (3) the relative importance of the moral and the miraculous, purity and power; (4) the empty distinction between water baptism and the baptism with the Holy Spirit plus the Witness in the Epistles to the latter, and (5) a reexamination of the exegetical evidence for the need of entire sanctification as a second crisis experience subsequent to regeneration.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruner, Frederick D. A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970

Stott, John R. W. The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, Illinois:

InterVarsity Press, 1964.