EXEGETICAL-THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS
ON THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT

by

Laurence W. Wood

In recent times the association of entire sanctification with the baptism with the Holy Spirit for some Wesleyan-Arminian evangelicals has become problematic if not explicitly denied. One easily suspects that the charismatic adoption of the "baptism language" may be a major factor in this growing uneasiness, yet there is no reason why a ruthless probing of the exegetical foundations should not be had. The primary issue before us in this paper is thus not the theology of entire sanctification. On that point Wesleyan-Arminians are generally agreed. However, it should be said that the relationship of entire sanctification to circumcision of heart has a significant bearing on the relationship of Pentecostal language to entire sanctification, and it is apparent that some Wesleyan scholars equate circumcision of heart with conversion-initiation. Thus the doctrine of entire sanctification is also a part of the concern of this paper, but the primary issue is: Is entire sanctification effected through the infilling of the Holy Spirit?

James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit,¹ has duly received considerable attention among Wesleyan-Arminians, at least so it seems to me in my conversations with my colleagues, students, and others. Dunn's scholarly exegetical-theological treatise is pivotal. One can hardly discuss this doctrine without reference to the issues raised by Dunn, an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland and lecturer in New Testament at the University of Nottingham.

What I propose to do in this essay is to capitalize on his exegetical-theological conclusions either as support for what I perceive to be the truth in this matter, or as an opportunity to take an opposing point of view. This dialogical approach will serve two functions. It will make it unnecessary for me to spend time reproducing those findings in his work with which I so thoroughly agree. It will also help to get the areas of disagreement and conflict out into the open where they belong if theological formulation is to be better stated and exegetically based.

Areas of General Agreement

Let us first focus attention upon those areas of exegetical-theological agreement.

(1) Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event in salvation history, for the Holy Spirit in an unprecedented way became operative in the world through the Church.²

(2) Pentecost marked the new era of divine grace. To be sure, this does not mean that the regenerating grace of God was inoperative before the day of Pentecost, but in regard to the history of salvation, only on the day of Pentecost when the gift of the Spirit was given did the grace of God become operative in a unique way.³

(3) The Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy of the last days in which "God's holy spirit" would be "purgative and refining for those who had repented." ⁴ For Wesley, entire sanctification is the purifying of the believer's heart from sin whereby he is enabled to love God with all his heart. For Dunn, it would appear from his exegetical work that such an experience is what the New Testament expects to be normative.⁵ Presumably Dunn does not really think this ideal can be actualized, but rather, he most likely interprets this biblical demand for perfect love in accord with Calvin’s imputation theory. At any rate, Dunn shows exegetical that it is the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit who purifies the heart.

(4) The Pentecostal gift is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of the new law written on the heart whereby one loves God with all his heart, soul, and mind. Dunn writes:

Among the specific promises of the Father for the messianic time and the new covenant the parallel between Ezek. 36.27 and Jer. 31.33 is particularly noticeable: both promise ability to keep the law, the law written in the heart (the enabling factor in Jeremiah) being precisely equivalent to the gift of the Spirit (the enabling factor in Ezekiel). In a new covenant theology, therefore, the Spirit is to be seen as the agent of the new covenant and its supreme blessing-the one who will write the law in their hearts, the one we may say who is the law written in their hearts.⁶

(5) The Pentecostal gift is the agent of spiritual circumcision of the heart which "is a total stripping away of the body of flesh (=the body of sin [Rom. 6:6]=the body of death [Rom. 7:24])."⁷ Dunn further writes:

Spiritual circumcision also is the work of the Spirit and the gift of the Spirit. The circumcision which matters is the circumcision of the heart effected by the Spirit (Rom. 2.28f.). We are the circumcision, because we have been circumcised by the Spirit, and having thus received the Spirit, we worship by the Spirit of God (Phil. 3.3).... The gift of the spirit is therefore to be equated with the circumcision of the heart (cf. Deut. 30.6 with Jer. 31.33 and Ezek. 36.26f.).⁸

I also endorse this association of the "circumcision of the heart" with the "baptism in the Spirit."⁹ It should also be noted that Wesley equated "circumcision of the heart" with entire sanctification: "January 1, 1733, I preached the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, which contains all that I now teach concerning salvation from all sin, and loving God with an undivided heart.... This was then, as it is now, my idea of perfection."¹⁰ It is also significant that Wesley appeals to these same passages (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:26f.) as texts to support his doctrine of Christian perfection.¹¹

(6) The Pentecostal gift is the agent of sanctification, for it is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies.¹² In particular, Dunn shows that the cleansing of the heart of the 120 believers on the day of Pentecost was effected by the baptism with the Holy Spirit.¹³ It should be noted that Dunn (as a Reformed scholar) would most likely interpret this "cleansing" in relative terms in so far as the believer's actual cleansing is concerned, although he would allow that "cleansing" would be "entire" in so far as the believer's ideal standing in Christ is concerned. For Wesley, cleansing from all sin can be effected in the heart of the believer in this life. He quotes I John 1:9 as a text to differentiate between the two works of grace: Forgiveness of sins relates to justification, whereas "a perfect Christian" is one who is "cleansed from all

unrighteousness" and thus "freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers."¹⁴ He also quotes Charles Wesley's hymn, "The Promise of Sanctification," to designate what he means by Christian perfection. The following verse is particularly enlightening:

Thy sanctifying Spirit pour

To quench my thirst and wash me clean:

Now, Father, let the gracious shower

Descend, and make me pure from sin.¹⁵

(7) The gift of the Spirit is not the same as the manifestations and gifts of the Spirit.¹⁶

(8) The baptism with the Spirit (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:15-16), the reception (lambanein) of the Spirit (John 7:39; 14:17; 20:22; Acts 1:8; 2:38; 8:15,17,19; 10:47; 19:2), the Spirit "falling upon" (epipiptein) (Acts 8:16, 10:44, 11:15), the Spirit "coming upon" (epelthontos) (Acts 1:8; 19:6), "filled with the Spirit" (Acts 2:4; 9:17) are equivalent phrases in these particular passages to denote the reality of Pentecost either in reference to the day of Pentecost or to subsequent occasions similar to the day of Pentecost.¹⁷ Other instances of being "filled with Spirit" in the Book of Acts (Acts 4:8, 31) probably are to be interpreted as typical of the Old Testament prophetic type of "fullness of the Spirit" whereby the prophet is enabled to speak the Word of God, rather than indicating the ethical type of "fullness of the Spirit" which marked the arrival of the New Covenant.

(9) Dunn points out that in the case of the disciples their regeneration preceded their baptism in the Spirit. He also points that there were two distinct events in the life of Jesus which have soteriological significance. One event was His identification with sinful men in which He was baptized with water, representing man’s need for repentance.¹⁸ The other distinct event was His baptism in the Spirit in which He was the first to enter the new covenant.¹⁹ In both cases, the significance of these two events for Dunn is that it marks the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. Hence, "what Jordan was to Jesus, Pentecost was to the disciples. As Jesus entered the new age and covenant by being baptized in the Spirit at Jordan, so the disciples followed him in like manner at Pentecost."²⁰ Since the disciples' baptism with the Spirit is acknowledged to be subsequent to their regeneration, one wonders why Dunn does not try to argue that they were not really converted until Pentecost in accord with his exegesis of the Samaritans and Ephesians (Acts 8 and 19). His concession in regard to the disciples' time-lapse between their regeneration and baptism with the Spirit seems to annul his exegesis of the other instances in the Book of Acts.

The One Area of Disagreement

Up to this point, the areas of general agreement with Dunn have been noted, especially his equation of Pentecostal language with circumcision of heart and loving God with all the heart. The substantive difference which this writer has with Dunn's position is his disallowance of two definitive works of grace.

Dunn's emphasis that salvation is a "single complex event"²¹ is indisputable. On the other hand, his insistence that no longer is there a "chronological disjointedness" in which conversion and the baptism with the Spirit are separated in time, since we have now entered the Pentecostal era in which the two events form "a chronological unity," is not so certain as he assumes.²² His reasoning is as follows. The apostles were regenerated before Pentecost, but this does not justify "taking the apostles' experience as the or a possible pattern for experience today."²³ Why? Because "the disciples' experience was determined by the process of salvation-history." He further says: "With Pentecost the transition phase comes to an end; the old stage of salvation-history was wholly past and the new stage wholly in operation. Henceforth entry into the blessings of the new dispensation is immediate, whereas for the apostles it was 'staggered.'"²⁴ To be sure, he admits that the Gospel of "John certainly shows that it may not be possible to equate Spirit-baptism with regeneration, but only in the case of the apostles."²⁵ Henceforth, "he who believes receives the Spirit in his cleansing, regenerating, baptismal power, bringing the forgiveness and life of the new dispensation."²⁶

Though Dunn is certainly right to stress the single complex event of salvation in the life of the individual believer, there is no reason why he should insist upon its "chronological unity." It seems to me justifiable to say that there are two coordinate moments in the single complex event of salvation and that there may be a time-lapse between these two distinct, but coordinate moments of conversion and the Spirit's baptism. Nor is it necessary to think of these distinct but coordinate moments as a "chronological disjointedness," for these moments are genuinely continuous though temporally distinct.

One of the things that I have liked so much about the theological concept of salvation history (a theological term widely used in contemporary theology) is its dynamic understanding of time. Salvation history is a continuous, albeit flexible and fluctuating line, running from creation to the eschaton (Cullmann). A number of unique events have occurred on this time-line at the center of which is the Christ-event. At no point however is any one event discontinuous with what is in the past or in the future. The present embraces the past and is moving forward by the pressure of the future. The past is never merely past and the present is never merely present, for the present which becomes past has its truth in God who is the power of the unbounded future (Pannenberg). Hence, the depth of one's spiritual life is determined by the orientation of his own personal history of salvation to the broader scope of salvation history.

This concept of salvation history surely allows for a more dynamic understanding of time than a strict dispensationalist idea of biblical history with its mechanical dissection of history into static periods of time. One of the implications of a theology of salvation history is that some may not be enjoying the full blessing of the new covenant. Their own personal history of salvation may be stalled at some particular point on the time-line of salvation history. Simply living in the Pentecostal, new covenant age of salvation history does not ipso facto mean all people are universally and unilaterally Spirit-filled Christians. Nor does it mean that when one becomes a Christian he is fully introduced into the full blessing of the new covenant, even though the emphasis especially in Paul's writing is rightly that the norm of the Christian life is the holy life evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit. Yet, many Christians have a personal history of salvation which is in a very real but qualified sense pre-Pentecostal. Some have a personal history of salvation which is pre-Christian, or pre-Mosaic, or pre-Abrahamic! C. S. Lewis in his autobiography (Surprised by Joy) tells of the time when he gave in and "admitted God was God," yet his conversion to theism was not a conversion to Christ which came later.

It seems to me that Dunn's soteriological monism freezes up the working of the Spirit. Does not the Spirit deal with each person according to his own personal salvation history? On some occasions the Spirit's baptism may come at conversion (Acts 2:37-38; Acts 10). On other occasions, the Spirit's baptism may follow conversion. The cases of the Samaritans (Acts 8), Paul (Acts 9), and the Ephesians (Acts 19) seem to overrule Dunn's contention that the "staggered" experience of the disciples cannot be normative for today, if the "plain and obvious sense" of these Pentecostal passages is allowed to speak for itself.

(1) The Samaritans' experience in Acts 8 would seem to suggest a time-lapse between conversion and the Spirit's baptism. Dunn's attempt to explain this away by suggesting that the Samaritans only gave intellectual assent (episteusan toi Philippoi) to Philip's preaching is not convincing. Acts 8:14 says the Samaritans had "received the Word of God," a parallel to Acts 2:41 where it is said of those converted by Peter's Pentecostal sermon that they "received his word." To receive the Word of God is to experience the reality of God, for God is his Word. When Peter and John later came to Samaria, they "received the Holy Spirit" subsequent to their having "received the word of God" through Philip. Hence Dunn's failure to observe the two parallel terms, "received the word of God" and "received the Holy Spirit," is a fatal oversight in his exegesis.²⁷ Further, that Simon Magus "believed" and "baptized" even though Peter observed his lack of true repentance is hardly evidence that the rest of the Samaritan "believers" were still "in the bond of iniquity."

(2) Dunn's exegesis of Acts 19:1-2 seems unnatural. His argument that the word "disciples" does not mean true Christian disciples because of the indefinite pronoun, tinas mathetas, is a non sequitur.²⁸ On another occasion, Luke refers to Ananias as a "certain disciple" [cf. tis mathetes en Damaskoi (Acts 9:10) with eis Epheson . . . tinas mathetas (Acts 19:1)]. Are we thus to conclude that the use of the indefinite pronoun suggests that Ananias was less than truly Christian?

This case of the Ephesians is a parallel to that of Apollos who only knew John's baptism though he had been "instructed in the way of the Lord" (Acts 18:25) and been "taught accurately the things concerning Jesus." F. F. Bruce points out the connection between Apollos and the Ephesians in this way:

When Luke uses the term "disciples" without qualification, as he does of these men, he elsewhere means disciples of Jesus; and Paul appears to have recognized them as Christian believers since he asks them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Luke does not bring them into direct relation with Apollos, to whom he has devoted the preceding paragraph (probably he derived this incident and the Apollos episode from two different sources), but since Apollos also is said to have known "only the baptism of John," for all his accurate knowledge of the story of Jesus (18:25), it is natural to conclude that they had learned of the Christian way along a similar line of transmission, deviating from that acknowledged by both Luke and Paul. However, when Paul realized the defective character of these disciples' faith and practice, he gave them further instruction and "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus"-the only instance of rebaptism in the New Testament. . . . It may be that the Ephesian disciples had received John's baptism more recently, when the age of the Spirit had already been inaugurated, in which case John's baptism might have been thought to be no longer valid.²⁹

Because these two passages stand in such close juxtaposition and because "they learned of the Christian way along a similar line of transmission" (Bruce), it seems to admit of supposition that Apollos was a pre-

Pentecostal" convert. Note the following progression of thought:

(1) Apollos "was an eloquent man, well versed (dunatos) in the Scriptures" (v. 24).

(2) "He had been instructed (katechemenos--catechism, instruction, not a piecemeal and rumored knowledge) in the way of the Lord" (v. 25).

(3) "taught accurately (akribos) the things concerning Jesus" (this emphasis upon his accurate knowledge of Jesus could hardly have been stressed if he failed to understand the central confession of the gospel that "Jesus is Lord." If his "catechism" had been other than "Jesus is Lord" it would have been an "inaccurate" knowledge).

(4) Priscilla and Aquila "expounded to him the way of God more accurately (akribesteron) (v.26). They did not change his understanding of who Jesus was; rather, they added to his incomplete knowledge. It only seems natural to suppose that Apollos (like the Ephesians) was a Christian disciple, but had not been baptized with the Holy Spirit. (5) "he powerfully (not merely well versed, but now with added fervor and unction, vehemently, eutonos) confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus" (v. 28).

Though Dunn calls into question the authentic nature of the Ephesians' (and by implication Apollos') contact with Christianity, he does admit that "we may not simply dub them 'disciples of John the Baptist' " since the "use of mathetai requires some connection with Christianity, and presumably Paul must have had some reason for addressing them as hoi pisteusantes."³⁰

(6) Saul's encounter with the risen Lord on the way to Damascus seems to imply that he was really converted. To suggest he really was not converted until his arrival three days later in Damascus seems to be a case of special pleading.³¹ Dunn fails to remember that Paul's encounter with the Lord was not without its preparation. He well knew the meaning of the gospel with its "blasphemous" claim that Jesus is Lord. Most forcefully was this message spoken by Stephen. To say, as Dunn does, that Saul, "a dazed and shocked man," could not have been brought into "full Christian commitment all in a matter of seconds"³² ignores his previous contact with the gospel. Consenting to the death of Stephen, Saul heard his last words: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit . . . Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:59-60). With Saul's exposure to Stephen's message and martyrdom and with his vision of the naked presence of God in Jesus Christ on the road, it is impossible to think of him confusing who God was in that moment and simply speaking to Him as "Sir," though kurie in other contests of course may be so translated (cf. John 12:21).

Saul's question, "Who are you, Lord?" was hardly a question in the sense of seeking factual information. It was more like a confession admitting Jesus was Lord. Only Jesus as Lord can reveal Himself to be such. Despite his rabbinic learning and adherence to the Law, Saul had now come to admit that he could not work his way to God; he could not discover through his own human efforts and reasoning the knowledge of God. And now, on the road, he comes to see that the knowledge of God is revealed through Christ and Christ alone. "Who are you, Lord?" The question is the answer. The Lord is whom He reveals Himself to be: "I am Jesus." When Paul came to Damascus, Ananias did not have to give him theological instruction; he only needed to administer the sacrament of baptism, symbolizing the washing away of his sins (Acts 22:16; cf. 26:12-21).

To be sure, Paul became "blind." Was this physical blindness symbolic of spiritual blindness? Was his groping about illustrative of his spiritual imbalance? Or was it not rather the result of his having seen the glory of God which engulfs and overwhelms? God's presence is like a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29). To come up against the stark reality of God so suddenly is to be struck down in fear and trembling. When Isaiah "saw the Lord" the shock was great: the foundations of the threshold shook, the house was filled with smoke, he could see nothing but the Lord high and lifted up, and he cried out "woe is me." Smoke may have blinded his eyes to everything else in the Temple, but he nonetheless "saw the Lord." This all-consuming experience of the divine is expressed by Abraham Heschel this way:

God to the Biblical man is a Being whose manifestation is more than flesh and blood can bear. One cannot see Him, one cannot hear Him and remain alive (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:33). "A dread, a great darkness" fell upon Abraham (Genesis 15:12). To perceive Him is to be crushed by His majesty.... When aflame with His presence, the world is consumed.³³

Saul may not have been able to see anything with his physical eyes because of the all-consuming presence of the Lord, but his spiritual sight was clear: He saw the Lord. "Have I not seen (heoraka) Jesus our Lord?" he tells the Corinthians. "Am I not an apostle?" (I Cor. 8:1). Horao is the word Jesus often used in speaking of His pre-existent state with His Father. He bears witness to what He had seen horao when He was with His Father in glory.³⁴ Horao thus suggests an existential reality; it is personal knowledge which is the most intimate knowledge that one can ever have. By contrast theoreo denotes "deliberate contemplation."³⁵ Theoreo is more theoretical, less personal. Blepo stresses "outward" and physical sight.³⁶ Saul was thus without sight (blepon). The men with him heard a voice, but saw (theoreo, spectator knowledge) no one. Saul saw (horao, personal knowledge) the Lord Jesus (I Cor. 9:1). (Cf. Gal. 1:16--apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi).

The aorist passive of horao is ophthe (appeared) which is used particularly in reference to the appearances of the risen Lord to the apostles and others (cf. I Cor. 15:5-6, and especially verse 7 where Paul says "he appeared also to me"). It is significant that Ananias says in vs. 17: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you" (ophtheis, which stresses a personal knowledge of the risen Lord.). G. G. Findlay says: "Iesous . . . heoraka . . . is a unique expression with Paul" which denotes

. . . that actual beholding of the human and glorified Redeemer; from this dated both his faith and his mission . . . The visible and glorious man who then appeared, then declared Himself as "Jesus"; from that instant Saul knew that he had seen the crucified Jesus risen and reigning.... Personal knowledge of the Lord and a "word from His mouth" (Acts xxii. 14) were necessary to constitute an Apostle in the primary sense.³⁷

Further, to suggest "Brother Saul" means Ananias greeted Saul as a "fellow Jew" rather than a Christian brother³⁸ seems to go against the obvious sense of the text, for Ananias greeted Saul as one who had a personal knowledge (horao) of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:17). Bengel shows that in this context Ananias called Saul a brother "by the old Jewish tie of connection, and by the new tie of Christianity."³⁹

An Excursus on Wesley

Dunn has rightly pointed out that John Wesley held the view that Saul was not converted until his arrival in Damascus.⁴⁰ In Acts 9:9 where it is said that Saul for three days was blind, Wesley comments in his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament: "So long he seems to have been in the pangs of the new birth." In another context, Wesley specifically says Paul did not have a "sudden conversion" on the road to Damascus; rather, the Lord worked gradually in Paul's soul until Ananias' ministry brought him into a state of conversion.⁴¹

In contrast to Wesley, it should be noted that even Bengel whose Gnomon Wesley's Explanatory Notes are in large part based on identifies Saul's conversion as being on the road to Damascus.⁴² John Calvin dates Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus when he "is suddenly changed into a new man"; he is "a new man framed by the Spirit of God."⁴³ The Interpreter's Bible calls his conversion sudden, whereas it was Ananias who "was the interpreter of the experience."⁴⁴ Other references which clearly date Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus include: International Critical Commentary, 32:178; The Expositor's Bible, 2:48; The Interpreter's Dictionary, K-Q, 684; Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 9;682; The Anchor Bible, Acts of the Apostles, p. 81; The Pulpit Commentary, 18:283; J. Rawson Lumby, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 192; Willi Marxsen, "The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical and Theological Problem," The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ, ed. C. F. D. Moule, p. 24. In my searching through the Asbury Seminary Library reference shelves on critical exegetical studies, I did not find a single scholar who supported Dunn's and Wesley's interpretation of Saul's conversion, though there may well be. Perhaps Dunn only quoted Wesley at this point since he finds little support elsewhere! At least one wonders why Wesley, whose exegesis is not highly appreciated by the Reformed tradition, should have been quoted by Dunn.

Does this mean that John Wesley did not relate the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit to entire sanctification as a second definite work of grace subsequent to regeneration? Is the "baptism with the Spirit-entire sanctification" relationship typical only of John Wesley's colleagues (John Fletcher, Adam Clarke, Charles Wesley) and not of himself? The answer is that Wesley did not in a systematic way address himself to this issue.

In a letter to Joseph Benson (March 9, 1771), Wesley cautions against "Mr. Fletcher's late discovery" (presumably a reference to Fletcher's identification of "receiving the Spirit" with sanctification). It is significant that Wesley's objections in this letter were mostly pragmatic, not exegetical: "The Methodists in general could not bear this. It would create huge debate and confusion."⁴⁵

Yet, one week later in another letter to Benson, Wesley specifically equates "perfected in love" with "filled with the Holy Ghost."⁴⁶ Perhaps Wesley was assuming a distinction between "receiving the Spirit" and being "filled with the Spirit," whereas Fletcher did not.

Hence, in one of his letters, Wesley cautions against speaking of Christian perfection in terms of "receiving the Spirit" since it is also true that all Christians have the Spirit: "If they like to call this 'receiving the Holy Ghost,' they may: only the phrase in that sense is not scriptural and not quite proper; for they all 'received the Holy Ghost' when they were justified."⁴⁷

On the other hand, there are instances where Wesley tacitly related the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit to Christian perfection. In a letter to John Fletcher, Wesley speaks of fathers (cf. I John 2:12-14) whose Pentecost had fully come in contrast to young men and "babes in Christ."⁴⁸

In another letter to Joseph Benson, Wesley supports Christian perfection with Old Testament passages which relate to the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit. Wesley writes: " 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you.' 'I will circumcise thy heart' (from all sin)."⁴⁹

In yet another place Wesley relates sanctification to the baptism with the Holy Spirit:

Many years ago my brother frequently said, "Your day of Pentecost is not fully come; but I doubt not it will: and you will then hear of persons sanctified, as frequently as you do now of persons justified." Any unprejudiced reader may observe, that it was now fully come. And accordingly we did hear of persons sanctified, in London, and most other parts of England, and in Dublin, and other parts of Ireland as frequently as of persons justified.⁵⁰

In his Explanatory Notes, Wesley specifically relates the "receiving of the Holy Spirit" by the Samaritans in Acts 8 and by the Ephesians in Acts19 to the "sanctifying graces" which for Wesley refers to the fruit of the Spirit, the essence of which is perfect love.⁵¹

Four summary comments can be made in this regard: (1) Wesley did not systematically develop a doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. (2) His remarks about any possible identification of the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" with "entire sanctification" are few and inconclusive. (3) On occasion he does in a tacit manner bring the baptism with the Spirit into close identity with the doctrine of entire sanctification. Specifically, his equation of entire sanctification and circumcision of the heart would necessarily commit him to this equation, for Deuteronomy 30:6 (along with Jer. 31:31-32 and Ezek. 36:26f.) has its fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost. (4) It seems only reasonable for John Fletcher to relate the doctrine of Christian perfection to the baptism with the Holy Spirit because Wesley linked circumcision of the heart and entire sanctification. Hence, John Fletcher made explicit what was implicit in John Wesley. Fletcher writes: "This good old Gospel is far more clearly set forth in Mr. Wesley's sermon, called 'Scriptural Christianity,' and in his 'Hymns for Whitsunday,' which I earnestly recommend, as, pointing out the 'one thing needful' for all carnal professors."⁵² Fletcher particularly calls attention⁵³ to the following passage in Wesley's sermon, on what it means to be filled with the Spirit ("Scriptural Christianity"):

It was, therefore, for a more excellent purpose than this, that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." It was, to give them . . . the mind which was in Christ, those holy fruits of the Spirit, which whosoever hath not, is none of His; to fill them with "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness" (Gal. V. 22-24) . . . to enable them to crucify the flesh, with its affections and lusts.⁵⁴

In this respect, the association of entire sanctification with Pentecostal language could be shown to be erroneous only if Wesley's equation of circumcision of heart and perfect love were erroneous. However, in view of their equation in Deuteronomy 30:6, this does not seem to be a viable position unless one holds to the imputation theory of Calvin which is the probable position of Dunn, in which case every believer is altogether "holy in Christ" at conversion and only partially holy in actuality so long as one is still living in this fallen world.

Concluding Remarks

Dunn has rightly shown throughout his work that the emphasis in Paul's writing is always upon the full blessing of the new covenant. Likewise, writing from the Roman Catholic viewpoint, O'Shea of the Catholic University in distinguishing between baptism (conversion-initiation) and confirmation ("receiving the Spirit") writes: "The New Testament writers spoke of the effects of the redemption as a whole, without distinguishing too much (or perhaps enough) the role of each of these rites in the scheme of things."⁵⁵ Also Karl Rahner points out that Paul is not concerned with how the ascent to Christian perfection is achieved, but only that we are to be perfect as Christ is.⁵⁶ Paul talks of nothing less than the adequacy of God's grace to destroy all sin and to impart Christ's righteousness and holiness to the believer. Likewise, Rudolf Bultmann shows that Paul's concern is not primarily with the forgiveness of sins; rather, Paul's concern is freedom from sin.⁵⁷ Dunn's conclusion of what it means to be a Christian is: "That man is a Christian who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit by committing himself to the risen Jesus as Lord, and who lives accordingly."⁵⁸ Also, Wesley says that "every real Christian" is perfect in love and free from sin.⁵⁹

What Dunn has set forth is truly the Pauline ideal. But is the ideal realized in the moment of conversion? Is the new covenant which liberates from all inward sin the experience of every born-again Christian? Is the new convert truly circumcised in heart? Has he a perfect love? Does he actually possess the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ?

One thing is quite certain. If Dunn's exegetical-theological conclusions are defensible in regard to his soteriological monism, then most people whom we call "new converts" really are not even converted, for the Pauline ideal of the Christian life is scarcely realized so quickly at the initial step of faith. Perhaps Dunn would theologically allow for a progressive realization of the full blessing of the new covenant, though his exegetical consideration implies "full" salvation is experienced at "conversion-initiation."

Further, if Dunn's analysis of the baptism with the Spirit is correct, then Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification is wrong. Dunn insists that circumcision of heart, purity of heart, the fullness of the blessing of the new covenant are realized in the moment of conversion (i.e., for him, at the Spirit's baptism), but Wesley insists that circumcision of the heart which he defines as "the being so 'renewed in the spirit of our mind,' as to be 'perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.' "⁶⁰ is subsequent to conversion-initiation.

To be sure, there is only one Christian life, not two, and its ideal is a life free from gin. The sad fact of the matter is that far too many "Christians" are not enjoying the full blessing of the new covenant. They have life, but not the abundant life of a heart purified by love. The ideal Christian is one of whom it can be said that, "God's love has been poured (ekkechutai, Pentecostal language-Acts 2:18; 10:45) into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given (dothentos, Pentecostal language, Acts 5:32;

8:18; 11:17; 15:8) to us" (Rom. 5:5).

Notes

¹James D. G. Dunn, Baptism With the Holy Spirit (SCM Press Ltd., 1970).

²Ibid, pp. 53-54. ³Ibid, pp. 52ff. ⁴Ibid. p. 13.

⁵Standard Sermons of John Wesley, ed. Edward Sugden (London: Epworth Press, 1956), 2:173.

⁶Dunn, pp. 47-48. ⁷Ibid., p. 153.

⁸Ibid., p. 156. ⁹Ibid., pp. 146, 156.

¹⁰Standard Sermons of John Wesley, 1:265.

¹¹Ibid., 2:173. ¹²Dunn, pp. 106, 120, 163, 164.

¹³Ibid., pp. 81-82. ¹⁴Standard Sermons of John Wesley, 2:173.

¹⁵Ibid., 2:175. ¹⁶Dunn, p. 56. ¹⁷cf. Dunn, pp. 56ff.

¹⁸Ibid., p. 36. ¹⁹Ibid., p. 32. ²⁰Ibid., p. 40.

²¹Ibid p 37 ²²Ibid p. 182. ²³Ibid., p. 181.

²⁴Ibid., p. 182. ²⁵Ibid ²⁶Ibid

²⁷Ibid p 65. ²⁸Ibid., p. 84.

²⁹F. F. Bruce, "The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles," Interpretation (27:2, April 1973), p. 176.

³⁰Dunn, p. 84. ³¹Ibid., p. 76 ³²Ibid p 74

³³God in Search of Man (New York: Harper, 1955), p. 191.

³⁴A Greek-English Lexicon, trans. Arndt and Gingrich, p. 581.

³⁵Vincent Word Studies, 2:66.

³⁶Ibid.

³⁷The Expositor's Greek Testament, ed., W. Robertson Nicoll, 2:845.

³⁸Dunn, p. 74. ³⁹Gnomon of the New Testament, p. 596.

⁴⁰Dunn, p. 77.

⁴¹Works of John Wesley (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872), 9:93.

⁴²Gnomon of the New Testament, p. 596.

⁴³Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949), p. 372.

⁴⁴The Interpreter's Bible, ed. George Buttrick (New York: Abingdon Press. 1954), 9:118, 123.

⁴⁵The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, ed. John Telford (London: Epworth, 1931), 5:228.

⁴⁶Ibid., p. 229. ⁴⁷Ibid., p. 215.

⁴⁸Ibid., 6:221; cf. Standard Sermons, 2:169.

⁴⁹Letters. 5:214. ⁵⁰Works, 3:116.

⁵¹Cf. Works, 6:10, 16-17.

⁵²Checks to Antinomianism (New York: Hunt and Eaton, 1889, 1:591. Epworth, 1931), 5:228.

⁵³Ibid., 1:593. ⁵⁴Standard Sermons, pp. 93-94.

⁵⁶William J. O'Shea, Sacraments of Initiation (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 62.

⁵⁶Theological Investigation, trans. Karl and Beniface Kruger (Baltimore: Helicon Pre~s, 1967), 3:5.

⁵⁷Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scriber's, 1951), 1:287.

⁵⁸Dunn, p. 229. ⁵⁹Works, 6:17.

⁶⁰Standard Sermons, 1 :268.

Edited by KimberLee Bingham for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University, 2000.