BAPTISM AND SPIRIT BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Robert W. Lyon

Introduction

The matter of understanding the biblical terminology, language and exegetical bases for the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection is a fundamental starting point for any systemic statement or proclamation of the holy life. In recent years the Wesleyan Theological Society and its journal have considered the language and thought of Pentecost historically as it has been reflected in the holiness movement.' What has been done so far has been helpful in clarifying positions and identifying data. Perhaps not many minds have been changed, but better understanding of the various angles from which the matters of Christian perfection are approached has undoubtedly been an important by-product.

But sooner or later, inevitably, the biblical questions must be raised, for in the end the answers to these questions will be determinative. This study is intended to be a contribution toward working through the biblical questions of the significance of the meaning of Pentecost and the practice of using pentecostal terminology in relation to the doctrine of Christian perfection. The study shall be fundamentally exegetical an m no way is intended to be a systematic statement on the doctrine. The focus will be entirely on the language of baptism and Spirit-baptism in the New Testament to see if the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is, or is related to, the experience of entire sanctification. Are the experiences narrated in the New Testament part of the exegetical basis for Wesley's doctrine of perfection in love? The study is limited to matters relating to this baptism language, and thus does not give consideration to other matters touching more broadly on Christian perfection.2

I shall begin with a general analysis of the baptism terminology throughout the New Testament whenever it is used metaphorically or theologically, and follow that up with a study of the specific phrase, "being baptized in the Holy Spirit," and some equivalent expressions. Finally, I shall draw attention to other material which will confirm the directions established earlier in the paper.

Baptism Terminology in the New Testament

In the New Testament we find four words from the "baptism" family: the verb baptizo is used 76 times, the noun baptisma 20 times, another noun baptismos 3 times, and the personal noun baptistes 12 times. The last two may be dismissed quickly: in all three texts baptz'smos refers to ritual cleansings, as in Mark 7:4, "The washing of cups and pots," or Hebrews 6:2, "instruction about ablutions." Regarding baptistes all 12 references are in the title, "John the Baptist." We are left, then, with baptizo, "I baptize," and baptisma, "baptism." But here we are interested only in those passages where the words are used metaphorically to convey theological or experiential realities. Of the 76 times the verb is used, 56 refer to an act of baptizing by John, by Jesus, or by the early church. For example, "John . . . was baptizing at Aenon near Salim" (John 3:23), or "Jesus came . . . to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him" (Matt.3:13). For our purposes these can be set aside. This reduces the number to 20. Of these 3 refer to ritual washings as in Mark 7:4: "They do not eat unless they purify themselves." Once (Mark 6:14) it is used as a title for John and equivalent to baptz'stes. The number of relevant texts is thus reduced to 16. Of these 6 are in parallels of the promise to those who will be "baptized in the Holy Spirit," and will be considered shortly. We have now 10 references to check out in which the verb is employed. As for the noun baptisma, 13 of its 20 references are to John's baptism as in Matthew 21:25: "The baptism of John, whence was it?" The other 7 references will receive our attention. Taken together the metaphorical and theologically significant references to baptism are as follows (grouped thematically):

Mark 10:38-39: "But Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? . . . The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized.' "

Luke 12:50: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!"

Rom. 6:3-4: "Do you not know that all of U9 who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death.... "

Col. 2:12: "And you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith.... "

Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you as were baptized ints! Christ have put on Christ."

I Cor. 10:2: " . . . and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."

I Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. "

Eph. 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

I Pet. 3:20-21: "[the eight members of Noah's family] were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The passages in Mark and Luke offer little help in terms of the specific concerns of this paper, for in them we have a singular use of terms. Here Jesus is referring to His impending passion and His metaphor may have in mind Psalm 42:7 ("Deep calls to deep at the thunder of thy cataracts; all thy waves and thy billows have gone over me.") or Psalm 69:1 ("Save me, O God) For the waters have come up to my neck.") or perhaps Isaiah 43:2 ("When you pass through the waters I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you.") So we move on to the other places where "baptize" and "baptism" are found.

In Romans 6:3-4 Paul writes, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death. “Here the terms are used metaphorically and refer to entrance into the Christian life. The metaphor is one of beginning or initiation other important point: it is all-inclusive in that it refers to the common experience of every believer.

Colossians 2:12 expresses much the same idea: "You were buried with him in baptism." It is a reference to the death and re-birth of the Christian. Again, it focuses on the beginning; it describes initial, saving faith, And again, it is the experience of every believer.

Linked to both of these is the statement in Galatians 3:26f.: "For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." The context makes it quite clear that Paul is speaking of justification, of entrance into the family of God, and that it relates to all believers.

It does not matter that these texts in Romans, Colossians and Galatians probably refer to water baptism. The two observations which are to be underscored are: (1) that the use of baptism terminology is linked to , entrance; and, (2) that it is inclusive of all believers.

I Corinthians 10:1-2 is a different type of expression. "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Paul is alluding to the exodus and analogically to the two sacraments, for he continues, "All ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink." The baptism metaphor relates to the "passing through the water"9 (as the Christian has) and hence to the fundamental saving event and moment. Again, it is all-inclusive.

The next two, I Corinthians 12:13 and Ephesians 4:5, are especially instructive in that they both relate to the Pauline concern for unity. The theme is the unity of the body with all its diversity. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." Here is reference to baptism (by) the Spirit. In his appeal to unity Paul points to the one common experience which forms the basis of that unity. All members of the body have, by definition, this experience of "baptism by the Spirit into the body." If it had anything to do with only those who have gone on to the deeper experiences. it would have no meaning in its context. The common baptism of the Spirit into the body constitutes the unity of the body.

Ephesians 4:4-5 makes the same point with more detail. Paul exhorts his readers to maintain the unity of the Spirit. "There is one body and one Spirit," and then he adds, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." The reference to baptism may have in mind either water baptism or the baptism of the Spirit. But which it is does not affect our study, for either way it involves all believers since it is a basis for the unity that Paul affirms. The different expressions refer to the common commitments and experiences of all in the body. The passage identifies what Westcott calls "the initial conditions of the Christ life"4 or as J. A. Robinson says, with reference to baptism here, "It was . . ., for all alike, the instrument of embodiment into the 'one body.'5

The only other methaphorical use of baptism in the New Testament is found outside of Paul, in I Peter 3:21. (We shall confine our attention to the matters at hand, and not get sidetracked by the innumerable problems this passage raises.) Peter refers to the patience of God in the days of Noah, in whose ark "eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." The reference is obviously to water baptism. In both the experience of Noah and his family and the experience of the believer, water (baptism) was present in the act of deliverance.6 Because it includes all believers, it has reference to their conversion.

This all-too-inadequate survey of the baptism terminology shows clearly and inescapably that so far baptism language without exception always has reference to a common experience of all believers and of their entrance into the body. It is the basis of the unity of the body and the ground of all ethical exhortation.

Being Baptized in the Holy Spirit

We turn now to the specific promise first uttered by John that the One coming after him would baptize in the Holy Spirit. We shall have to include parallel terms and the several crisis experiences in the Acts of the Apostles. To begin with, our phrase which employs the noun ("the baptism of the Holy Spirit") is not found anywhere in the Bible. The expression is found only with the verb. Six different texts preserve the promise that those who hear the messianic word and respond accordingly will be baptized with the Spirit. Four of these (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33) are the saying of John the Baptist, "I have baptized in water, but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit" (Matt. and Lk, adding "and fire"). The other two passages are in Acts (1:5 and 11:16) and repeat the same promise, but this time, apparently, it is the promise reiterated by Jesus. In both sayings (or in all six if one counts parallels separately) those who respond to the messianic word will be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Another preliminary observation needs also to be made: In all four accounts of the saying in the Gospels, and by implication in Acts, Jesus is the subject, that is, He baptizes with the Spirit in an act of the risen Lord, not an act of the Spirit who is identified

instrumentally in all the sayings. So, by way of summary thus far, we are examining a promise given to all who respond. viz., that the Messiah will baptize them with the Spirit-the Spirit of the new age.

With one exception the only accounts of such experiences are in the book of Acts, so we shall proceed through the book of Acts and give attention to each expression which speaks of an experience of the Holy Spirit. As we do this we must remember to read the author's thoughts after him, to accept the experiences as he understood them. And not to manipulate by arbitrary cross-reference, proof text or harmonization.

The first such experience is the experience of Pentecost itself in Acts 2, in which we read that those in the upper room were all "filled with the Holy Spirit." No one, I suspect, doubts that this is the fulfillment of the promise expressed in 1:5 and 1:8. If 90, we have three expressions involving three different verbs. In 1:5 they are to be "baptized in the Spirit"; in 1:8 the Spirit is to "come upon" them; then in 2:4 they are "filled with the Holy Spirit." To the author of Acts these terms are interchangeable. To be baptized in the Spirit is to have the Spirit come upon us, which in turn is to be filled with the Spirit. (An important caveat must be offered: because being baptized in the Spirit and being filled with the Spirit are equivalent expressions for this author, does not mean that they are for any other writer; methodologically that would have to be established for each author.) In Peter's sermon that same day he uses yet another term, "pouring out upon" (Acts 2:33, derived from the prophecy of Joel), to explain what has happened. "He [Jesus] has poured out this which you see and hear." So now we have four expressions to describe this experience of the Spirit.

The next expression is a promise to those who heard Peter's sermon and who were pricked to the depths of their being. To them he says, "Repent, and be baptized . . . and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). The narrative that follows tells us that those who received the word were baptized-about 3,000 in number. Now this narrative only fits together if we recognize that these 3,000 did in fact realize in their lives what Peter had promised: they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. To include the promise in the narrative and not to assume fulfillment would not make sense of the account. But one further point needs to be made, and that is, Peter promised to his hearers the very same experience which they had seen occur in the original outpouring. It would be unreasonable and unwarranted not to expect this as though Peter were saying, "We have received this experience; you are not ready for it yet, but this is what is available for you." No. These people saw something take place and were offered the same experience for themselves. Taking the context as a whole, this is the only way we can understand it. Peter by his message and invitation has set before them the very same opportunity which was fulfilled in the lives of the 120. This is important because it adds another term to a growing list. It also means that for this writer- and I emphasize that phrase-no distinction is to be made between receiving the Spirit and being filled or baptized with the Spirit. All the terms-baptizing, coming upon, filling, pouring out, receiving-are equivalent expressions. We will have occasion to test that conclusion later.

The next expression, found in 4:31, is another matter altogether. After release from custody Peter and John return to the believing body and report the events. After prayer the place is shaken, they are filled with the Spirit and they speak boldly. I think we can assume that this group included the inner circle previously described. If so, this is another "filling," but it is probably akin to those experiences in the Old Testament when the Spirit of God came upon a spokesman, a leader or a judge for purposes of special anointing for wisdom, power or speech. It has reference to the bold, forthright proclamation of the word in Jerusalem and environs.7 Several other expressions in Acts (6:3, 5; 7:55; 11:24; 13:9, 52) are in the same class.8 As such they are not directly related to our examination of that promised experience of the Spirit. So we proceed.

The next account of an experience of the Spirit is in Acts 8, the so-called Samaritan experience. This is by all accounts the stickiest of all narratives because every interpretation falls somewhat short of fitting neatly the pattern of this book. But first some observations. Their preacher, Philip, had the necessary credentials. Nothing was lacking there. It is said also that they believed Philip's message (v. 12). They had received the word (v. 14) and had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 16). This account sounds as if they were truly converted. But questions arise. Everything that is said about the Samaritans is also said of Simon Magus who certainly had problems. If they were Christians, so was he at this point. Further, the reference in verse 16 to the fact that the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon them sounds as though this is abnormal and a surprise. Something was not quite right. Finally, the repeated reference in the narrative to the miraculous (w. 6, 7, 13) might suggest an emotion-laden atmosphere which hindered the clear reception of the word. There is precedent for this in the ministry of Jesus, for in John 2:23-24, we read that many believed on His name when they saw the signs He was doing; but Jesus did not in turn entrust Himself to them. I suggest, then, that the sending of Peter and John was to provide some sort of corrective. One thing, however, is quite certain, viz., that when Peter and John laid their hands upon them and they "received" the Holy Spirit, it was their first experience of the Spirit and cannot be counted as a second experience. In the schema of the book (see 1:8) it is the incorporation of the Samaritans into the body. It was, so to speak, the culmination of their conversion.

We turn now to the conversion of Paul as told in Acts 9. He is arrested by a light and a voice and is led blind into the city where he remains three days without nourishment. When Ananias comes, he addresses Paul as "brother" and says to him, "The Lord . . . has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit" (9:17). The narrative that follows mentions only the regaining of sight, but we cannot doubt that the mission of Ananias was accomplished, that is, that Paul was also filled with the Spirit. An additional observation is to be made from the parallel account in Acts 22:16 when Paul, after being taken into protective custody by the Romans, reports this event. There we read that Ananias, when he reported to Paul his mission, then said, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sing, calling on his name." According to the author's use of terms, this is conversion language: baptism, forgiveness of sing, calling on the name of the Lord. Here we see that the visit of Ananias to Paul represents the culmination of the latter's conversion, at which time he is filled with the Spirit, that is, he received the Spirit. Wesley noted this, for in his Explanatory Notes on 9:9 and the reference to three days without sight and food he writes, "So long he [Paul] seems to have been in the pangs of the new birth."9 What we have here, then, is another example of this experience of the Holy Spirit at conversion. It is Paul's initial encounter with the Spirit.

The next encounter with the Holy Spirit has to do with Cornelius and his household. The narrative of the experience itself is given in 10:44-47 with interpretive comments in 11:15-16 and 15:8. While Peter was yet speaking, it happened! The Holy Spirit "fell" upon them. The Jews who had accompanied Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit was "poured out" even on the Gentiles. Peter then suggested the rite of water baptism for those who had "received" the Holy Spirit "just as we have." Here, again, three different verbs are used to describe the experience-"fall upon," "pour out," and "receive"-and they are equivalent expressions. And we note that two of them (viz., "pour out" and "receive") were used earlier of the Pentecost event. Even more important is that little expression at the end of the verse: "just as we have." This clearly equates the experience of Cornelius with what occurred at Pentecost. And it was most certainly the conversion of Cornelius and his incorporation into the body of Christ. Only an extremely tendentious exegesis could avoid that last conclusion. It is the account of a beginning, not a second blessing.

The two texts which interpret this experience allow for no other conclusion. When Peter returns to Jerusalem to tell what happened, he says (in 11:15), "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning." Again, note that last clause. Then he adds, "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit' " (11:16). This supports an earlier conclusion that there is no difference in Acts (and no other book offers evidence) between "receiving the Spirit" and "being baptized with the Spirit, " for in 10:47 and 11: 16 both are used of the Cornelius experience. Acts 15:8 only confirms this, for the Spirit was "given" (a word not previously used) to them "just as to us." Everything in these narratives requires our understanding the conversion of Cornelius as the occasion for his experience of the Spirit. Upon hearing and receiving the word, he was baptized, according to promise, in the Spirit.

The last account of an experience of the Spirit is that of the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-7. Here again we have problems.10 Were these people, who are referred to in verse 1 as "certain disciples," already Christians when Paul came? The use of the term "disciple" certainly suggests that, and that idea is encouraged by the expression "when you believed"l1 in verse 2. But other evidence impinges upon that view. For example, why did Paul even ask the question, unless he knew something? Again, they had not even heard of any receiving of the Spirit; and they had only received John's baptism. Finally, Paul baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus-an act he would hardly have performed had he regarded them as Christians. While certainly not free of ambiguities, what we seem to have here is an account of the conversion of some disciples of John the Baptist (or of a similar "preparation type movement'') who had been prepared for the gospel. What cannot be doubted is that this is their first encounter with the Spirit-unless one were to suggest that unknown to them they had been born of the Spirit. But that thought would be totally foreign to the author of this book. Nothing in the narrative offers any suggestion that this is a subsequent experience of the Spirit.

What type of picture is presented us in this material from the book of Acts? First, various expressions are used interchangeably which indicate that we have no basis here for distinguishing between receiving the Spirit and being baptized in, or filled with, the Spirit. Both 2:38 and 10:47 refer to "receiving" the Spirit in connection with a baptism experience. We offer a second conclusion: Apart from the initial outpouring at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) all the accounts are first encounters with the Spirit and have nothing to do with any second works of grace. And, third, if we think the author's thoughts after him, those are all "entrance" accounts-how first Jews, then Samaritans and finally Gentiles entered the Christian community. If we can get away from insisting that conversion- must be at a particular moment, we can see all these again, with the exception of Acts 2, are conversion experiences. That is, e.g., Paul's conversion was during his three-day experience at Damascus. The Samaritans were converted under the ministry of Phillip, Peter and John.

Now what about Acts 2? One thing must certainly be said: The disciples were believers before Pentecost. Everything in all four Gospels forces us to that conclusion. Compare especially, Luke 9:1; 10:20; John 15:3; 17:6, 12. As believers, they have come into contact with the Spirit, but and here I suggest a novel term-only "by proxy"-that is, by virtue of the Spirit in Jesus whose ministry is everywhere viewed as a ministry in the Spirit. So, by virtue of His presence the Spirit is present to them, but not in the promised sense. This is the reason Jesus is able to say that it is to their advantage that He go away (John 16:7), because then the Spirit will be given personally. That giving of the Spirit takes place at Pentecost and from that point on the residence of the Spirit is co-extensive with the Church.12 The two-step experience of the original disciples is the truly unique experience and cannot be repeated for there is no way to repeat their relationship with the incarnate and earthly Jesus.13 From Pentecost on every one enters upon the receiving (i.e., the baptism) of the Spirit. The 3,000 at Pentecost, the Samaritans, Paul, Cornelius and his household, and the 12 in Ephesus all enter the body of Christ by virtue of this common experience of the Spirit.

We have found in this material a remarkable correlation with the earlier examination of the baptism terminology in that together we begin to see the language of conversion and entrance into the body of Christ. To be baptized is to receive the Spirit as promised. From Pentecost on, not to have the Spirit is not to be a Christian (cf. Rom. 8:9).

The baptism in the Spirit, far from being the second experience and an experience subsequent to receiving the Spirit or being born of the Spirit, stands scripturally at the heart of conversion. The nature of Christian conversion, when fully appreciated, is by itself and in itself an anticipation of what we seek to find completed in the insufflation of love. To be made perfect in love is to come to know the natural (supernatural) consequence and corollary of conversion. Perfection in love is the follow-up of that baptism in the Spirit which sets the believer on course.

A working thesis would be set forth as follows: According to Scripture, conversion is itself a radically transforming experience which involves a breaking of the bondage to sin, a dying to self and the realization of a new righteousness. In receiving Christ, the powerful and creative Word of God is engrafted and the Spirit is received, as promised, in full measure. There is new beginning in every respect (II Cor. 5:17). In our conversion the Holy One touches down and His nature invades our privacy. We are brought out from under the tyranny of darkness into the domain of filial love (Col. 1:13). In short, conversion biblical style is a truly sanctifying experience in its impact and in its ramifications. All imperatives to Christians to cease from sin and to be holy flow from this understanding of the dynamic of biblical conversion.

In speaking of conversion as a "truly sanctifying experience" care must be taken not to take that to mean it is the "entirely sanctifying experience." The experience of entire sanctification is biblically speaking the normal follow through of conversion when the latter is adequately perceived. In conversion we receive from a gracious and all-wise God every provision for carrying out all His commandments. That we do not do so is clear, but that does not alter what Scripture says of conversion.

It might be suggested at this point that none of this is new, that Wesleyan theologians have consistently spoken of an "initial sanctification" that takes place at conversion. But the tendency has been to limit such sanctification to almost only a hint of what is available. That it is so constricted flows quite naturally from some of our common distinctions as "Christ the justifier; the Spirit the sanctifier" or "receiving the Spirit at conversion and being filled with the Spirit at sanctification." The work of the Spirit in conversion is then reduced to a minimum and His crucial work kept till later. Such distinctions may preach well, but they are not biblical.

Other Related Terms

Permit me now to justify this "thesis-with-commentary" by a few additional exegetical observations. In Romans 6:12f£, Paul exhorts his readers to cease from sin which is no longer to have dominion over them. "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, . . . yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, . . . For sin will have no dominion over you." We go back to the preceding verses to understand why he can issue such a command with such confidence. In verse 2, he says we have "died to sin." In verse 6 "our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed." Because of the nature of the metaphor-the crucifixion of our old man, the destruction of the body of sin-Wesleyan theologians have at times picked upon this passage as a basis for the doctrine of Christian perfection to argue that sin can be destroyed and our old self can be crucified. But a careful reading of verses 1-14 shows that verses 1-11 represent the affirmation of fact (all indicatives) and form the basis for the exhortation in verses 12-14. Paul states categorically that a Christian-every Christian-is one who has died to sin and his old man has been crucified for the destruction of the body of sin. This is the common experience of the believer and not only of the few who have gone on to perfection. These are not merely legal or forensic accounts, but descriptive of fundamental change brought about by incorporation in Christ. "Legal" death to sin cannot account for the imperatives of verses 12-14. In their conversion to Christ sin has been dealt a lethal blow and no longer is master. The "therefore" (oun) of verse 12 is significant. What he says about moral purity is said because of their basic experience of Christ.

Consider along with this the other references in the Pauline letters to the death and/or crucifixion of believers: II Corinthians 5:14, "We are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died." These no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised. Galatians 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Galatians 5:24, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." And Colossians 2:20, "If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe [and you have],14 why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?" In each passage fundamental and all-encompassing imperatives are based on these indicatives.

Consider, too, the other references to "the old man" in Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3:9, where the putting off of the old and the putting on of the new are the factual experiences of believers and thus are the warrants for the moral exhortation in both texts. Note the dio ("wherefore") in Ephesians 4:25 and the noun ("therefore") in Colossians 3:12. In these passages Paul does not exhort the Christian to put off the old man and put on the new. Imperatives are built on indicatives, not other imperatives. As Christians this they were taught to do; and because they have done it, they are to bear the fruit of that new man created in righteousness and true holiness. Put it all together and we begin to see the creative power and the potential for moral freedom that is the warp and woof of conversion, Pauline style.15

Other Pauline metaphors such as "the new creation for whom the whole past is done away" (II Cor. 5:16ff.) and the Adam/Christ antithesis in Romans 5 suggest a radical personal re-orientation that includes the moral dimension. Prior to being in Christ he was helpless, totally so, but in Christ it is a new ballgame. An alternative to Adam is now before him. Obedience is not only an authentic possibility, but in Christ a natural one.

If this is true in Paul's letters, how much more clearly so is it in I John. Listen to what the aged saint says to the struggling Christians under his ministry. In 3:6 we read, "No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him." And in 3:9, "No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God." Then in 5:18, "We know that any one born of God does not sin." Without dealing with all the difficulties presented by these texts, and without becoming technical by discussing the tenses in the Greek, yet one element of John's thought stands out and is above debate, viz., that new birth meant a radical break with sin. The possibility of not sinning or the impossibility of committing sin simply are not categories outside Christ. He writes not of the entirely sanctified only, but of every believer. In and by virtue of his new birth, the Christian finds himself with a new freedom which results in a separation from sin; "the evil one does not touch him" (I John 5:18) To be sure John does make provision for the believer who sins for he has a paraclete with the Father. John is not talking about the sinlessness of all believers. He is speaking of a new alienation from sin by virtue of his being born of God. This is what I mean when I speak of conversion which suggests the reality of a subsequent perfection in love. The great hurdle is overcome in new birth. Now, instead of sin being at home, or being natural, it is as a stranger at the gate. Now instead of our struggling to get sin off our back, sin itself struggles to maintain a hold on our lives.

Summary

By way of a summary I offer the following: From Pentecost on, all believers receive at conversion the Holy Spirit as promised-in His fullness. No biblical basis exists for a distinction between receiving the Spirit and being baptized in, or filled with, the spirit. The Acts of the Apostles shows au contraire that they are interchangeable expressions. All references involving the language of baptism reinforce that conclusion, for they are all-inclusive as descriptive of every believer. These, in turn, are further reinforced by various Pauline and Johannine themes in which the indicative descriptions of the basic experience of being apprehended by Christ are the bases for all-encompassing commands for holy living.

Were someone to ask me where we begin in establishing the biblical roots of Wesley's doctrine of perfection in love, one of the powerful warrants I would offer would be this biblical account of conversion. The dynamic of conversion to Jesus Christ is such that perfection in love is the mandatory follow-up. Consider how Scripture spells out conversion: Through faith in Christ a person is born from above and so finds an alternative to the cycle of sin and death. Now for the first time he need not sin. The old man is crucified; the "body of sin" is destroyed; in Christ the new man has been put on, an authentic creative act in which righteousness and devotion find clear expression (Eph. 4:24). He has received in full measure the promised gift of the Spirit of God. He is what he is by virtue of a new creative act of God which removes all the past and establishes an alternative to Adam. The powerful and purging Word of God is engrafted and he is being transformed from one degree of glory to another (II Cor. 3:18). Every New Testament imperative is based on the nature of this conversion to Christ. And every New Testament imperative is considered right in the light of what has already transpired.

Notes

1See, e.g., John A. Knight, "John Fletcher's Influence on the Development of Wesleyan Theology in America," Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 1978, 13-33; Timothy L. Smith, "The Doctrine of the Sanctifying Spirit: Charles G. Finney's Synthesis of Wesleyan and Covenant

Theology," WJT, Spring 1978, 92-113; D. W. Dayton, "The Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: Its Emergence and Significance," WTJ, Spring 1978, 114-126; H. McGonigle, "Pneumatological Nomenclature in Early Methodism," WTJ, Spring 1973, 61-72.

2Because this study confines itself to a study of Spirit baptism language and experiences and to texts which relate to such experiences, it will not relate directly to the biblical evidence for belief in Christian perfection, nor will it touch on matters related to that doctrine such as the nature of sin, progress and crisis and so forth. By way of anticipating the conclusions the paper offers a description of conversion in its full dynamic as the biblical preface to, and ground for, anticipating an experience of entire sanctification.

3It does not matter that the relation of water to the people involved in the two experiences (the exodus and Christian baptism) is different. In the former the people are kept from contact with the water and thus pass through to freedom; in the latter water contact is as fundamental.

4B. F. Westcott, St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (1952), p. 59.

5J Armitage Robinson, St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (1903), p. 178.

6As in I Cor. 10:2, the relationship of the one(so delivered is different. Noah and his family were saved from the water. But the point is that in both experiences water was present in the experience of deliverance. Cf. footnote 3.

7Cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p. 228. "It is the Holy Spirit who bestows the fearlessness with which the Christian message is proclaimed in the face of danger."

8" . . . the Holy Spirit filled them all and sent them forth to proclaim the good news with renewed confidence." F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (NIC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 109.

9Cf. J. A. Bengel on the reference in 9:9 to "three days": "The business of conversion is worth the bestowal of whole days, when one is being drawn to God." Gnomon, ad loc.

10"Taken as an isolated passage, Acts 19:1-7 is the despair of the exegete." E. Kasemann, Essays on New Testment Themes, SBT No. 41 (SCM, 1964), p. 136.

11Any attempt to establish time of action on the basis of the aorist tense of the participle is doomed to failure. The basic element of tense in Greek is not time but how the action is viewed by the writer or speaker. An obvious example, pace, KJV, of an aorist participle at the same time as the leading verb iY Acts 1:8. On the Greek tense see E. D. Burton, Moods and Tenses, pp. 54, 59f.; C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book, pp. 5f.; A. T. Robertson, Grammar, pp. 343f.

12 Cf. Rom. 8:9; the portrait of Paul in Acts is consistent at this point.

13Some within the holiness movement concede the experiences of the Samaritans, of Cornelius and his household, and of the twelve in Ephesus do not provide a basis for a doctrine of a second work, but contend that the experience of the original disciples (Acts 2:4) provides a model or pattern today. Two observations make this impossible: (1) the model is not followed elsewhere in Acts or the early Church; (2) it fails to consider the heilsgeschichtlich significance of Pentecost as the once-for-all inaugurative event which establishes the Church.

14The conditional clause in Greek indicates condition of fact.

15It is worth noting how often these passages (Rom. 6:1ff.; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9f.) have been employed within the holiness movement as a basis for the exhortation to Christian perfection when in reality they are descriptive of what has happened in the lives of all believers. The metaphors employed (the crucifixion of the old man, the destruction of the body of sin, the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new) are powerful images; that they all relate to all believers underscores the existentially radical character of conversion as a new orientation and dynamic opening up of new vistas of obedience. That they have been treated in terms of a second work shows that (probably) unconsciously conversion has in fact been reduced in significance, hence making a second work more obviously necessary. But the Wesleyan doctrine has its sure foundation.

Edited by Brian Seidel