Pastor Charles Leiter began a series a few weeks ago on "baptism in the Spirit". This series is a sub-series within the book of Romans. However, before I begin posting my notes from the messages, I thought it best to clarify our position as contrasted with other movements within Christendom.
There are several issues within the context of this discussion. However, for the sake of study, we will focus on the two main theological camps. Although the theological disagreement is broader than the scope of our study, we will stick to the issue of baptism in the Spirit as understood by both camps. The first position states that baptism in the Spirit happens at the inception of the Christian life and is completely non-experiential. The second position states that baptism in the Spirit can (but not necessarily) happen at the inception of the Christian life and is experiential. Robert Reymond would be an example of a theologian who holds to the first position. Martyn Lloyd-Jones would be an example of a theologian who holds to the second position.
I would quickly add that there is diversity among those who hold to the second position concerning the terminology for second experiences. If the discussion were broadened to second experiences in general, Sam Storms, John Piper, and Wayne Grudem would be added to those that hold the second position. Though we consider the Scriptural terminology to be of vital importance, it may be helpful to view the two camps as follows: the second position, broadly speaking, affirms the possibility of an experiential, objective, coming-upon work of the Spirit whereby the believer is given a heightened sense of assurance and power to preach the Word (i.e. the experiences recorded in Acts 2, 4, 8, 10, and 19 are repeatable today). Those who hold to the first position would deny the possibility of such an event (i.e. the experiences recorded in Acts 2, 4, 8, 10, and 19 belong to the historical-redemptive framework and are therefore not repeatable today). Before we end, a word needs to be said about some groups within the second camp.
Church historians generally agree that Pentecostalism, as a movement, began around the turn of the 20th century with the Azusa Street Revival. While Pentecostalism formed itself within denominational boundaries, the Charismatics emerged in the 1960's and 1970's within the context of other denominations. In other words, this latter group arose within the context of the Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc. The emphasis of both of these groups was the experiential workings of the Spirit. However, both movements are laden with doctrinal and practical error. For instance, the "Word of Faith" movement and the so-called "Toronto Blessing" would be considered Pentecostal or Charismatic in nature. Therefore, it is vital to keep in mind that the above mentioned theologians that hold to the second position (along with Bro. Charles Leiter) have joined the attack against the grievous errors of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement.
Nevertheless, truth is not protected nor advanced by fences or reaction. Our questions and answers must revolve around the teaching of Scripture, not the avoidance of excesses within Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement. In view of the theological baggage many readers would bring to the issue, we will define the second position in more detail using Scripture through the various posts. I want to encourage you to ask questions where clarity is needed. We, as usual, welcome any correspondence.
