The Spirit Baptism, Nineteenth Century Roots

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

| PentecostalTheology.com

               

127

The

Spirit Baptism,

Nineteenth

Century

Roots

Roland Wessels*

Pentecostals claim that there is a life

transforming

and

empowering experience subsequent

to conversion, called the

Baptism

of the

Holy Spirit, (The prepositions

“in” and “with” are also used. Often it is now being designated

“the

Spirit baptism”)

with the

accompanying sign

of tongues (glossolalia)

which all Christians

may

and

ought

to receive, and that this

experience opens

the door to receiving the

gifts

of the

Spirit. What were its roots in Nineteenth

Century

North American

Evangelical Christianity? My purpose

is to join in the discussion of how this

particu- lar doctrine of the

Spirit baptism developed.1

I shall

briefly

describe a variety

of

understandings

of the

Spirit’s outpouring

found

among

these Evangelicals

and then deal

carefully

with that

complex

of interpretations which

prepared

for the Pentecostal

perspective.

The Hermeneutical Circle

Those who contributed to the formulation of this doctrine believed that the

promises

of God found in

Scripture may

be

genuinely

realized within human

experience. They

affirm that God is both immanent and active,

and that His

activity

results in real

changes

in human lives and circumstances. God acts within the order, but above the

power

of crea- turely beings.

Thus the results cannot be accounted for in purely natural- istic terms.

They

are miraculous and

supernatural.

The

Scriptural

record depicts

how God has acted in years

gone by,

to be sure. But God is not limited to the Biblical

past.

What He did

then,

He can do

today.

The Bible contains

patterns

of

experience

which indicate the

way

God deals with His human creatures. And the divine

promises

found there declare what God is

prepared

to do for them. These

promises

are

conditional, but if the conditions are met, God will fulfill them. He has bound Himself to His word. Here

appears

the

open

door to the treasure-land of the

supernatural

and its method of

opening.

In the

light

of these divine promises,

we are called to

depend upon

God to fulfill them and to repudiate

our human

ability

to deal

appropriately

with those needs which God has

promised

to meet. This was the

Evangelical’s

hermeneutical principal. They

affirmed the

authority

of

Scripture,

as so

understood,

*Roland Wessels is Waldo Professor of Ecclesiastical

Bangor Theological Seminary, Bangor,

Maine 04401.

History

at

lI I am building on the pioneering which I did in my unpublished Th.D. disserta- tion, “The Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Among the Assemblies of God” (Department of the History of Christianity, Pacific School of Religion,

May 1966). Donald Dayton retraced the path independently in his Roots Penrecostalism Francis

Theological of

(Grand Rapids: Asbury Press, 1987), chapters 3 and 4.

1

128

However,

believing

and

over the

authority

of the creeds.

They

decried a “dead

Orthodoxy,” witnessed to a life in which God was

fulfilling

His

promises.

that God

speaks through

the Bible to those to whom the

promises

are addressed, does not relieve one of the

necessity of

interpretation.

What does the

promise

under consideration

really mean? When

may

one

hope

it to be realized? What are the conditions? What does one

expect

as its fulfillment? Answers to these

questions varied

considerably among

those

loyal

to the same

understanding

of

as the oracles of God.

They

tended to be

governed by

their

concerns. The felt need and the

religious experience

which it was believed met that need

played

a

major

role in

defining

how the

and its fulfillment was

understood, closing

the hermeneutical circle. This created the

dynamic

for

controversy

and also

theological

Scripture religious

promise

development among Evangelicals. of the

gift

of the

Spirit.

The Promise

And so it was

regarding

the

promise

of the

Spirit

(of

every one

“evangelical” interpretation

Evangelicals generally agreed

that the

giving

of the

Holy Spirit

to the Galilean followers of

Jesus, as portrayed

in the second

chapter

of

Acts, was

clearly

not limited to the

day

of Pentecost. For, as Peter declared to the devout Jews who witnessed that

bewildering spectacle,

“the

promise

the

Spirit)

is to

you

and to your children and to all that are far

off,

whom the Lord our God calls to him”

(Acts 2:39).

But the

of the

promise

and its fulfillment was cer- tainly

not uniform. In fact there were a number of interpretations.

A Worship Experience

ings dynamic

as

truly

Pentecostal.

Those who

participated

in the

Kentucky

Revival and the

camp

meet-

to which it

gave birth,

for

example,

identified the

particularly

form of

worship

which

they experienced

It awakened Christians from their

dogmatic

slumbers and confronted the world with the awesome

reality

of God’s

presence,

a divine

awakening which

stopped

the mouth of the

skeptic. Speaking

of the Cane

Ridge

Barton Stone

observed, “Many things transpired there,

which were so much like miracles that if

they

were not,

they

had the same effect as miracles on infidels and

unbelievers;

convinced that Jesus was the Christ and bowed in submission to Him”2

meeting,

What

happened

in these

gatherings, ment of Joel’s

prophecy,

describing

for

many

of them were

the

outpouring

repetition

of the Pentecostal

outpouring (Joel 2:28).

the

Kentucky

Revival, called the

prophesying, the

dancing, inspired by

the

Spirit

and “God’s

world where He was about to

open

His

everlasting kingdom

it was said, was the further fulfill-

of the

Spirit upon

all

flesh, a

Richard

M’Namar,

the

singing,

way

of

showing

the

of

2Rhodes Thompson, ed.,voices from Cane Ridge, (Saint Louis: Bethany Press,

1954), 68.

2

129

righteousness, peace

and

joy

in the

Holy

Ghost.”3

According

to an old camp meeting song, sung

to silence the

objections

of the

“formalist,” such scenes were indeed a repetition of the Pentecostal

outpouring

of the Spirit

when:

As Peter was preaching, and bold in his

The

teaching,

plan of salvation in Jesus’ name, The

Spirit descended and some were offended

And said these men, filled with new wine.”

I doubted that some “They’re never yet of them shouted,

While others lay prostratc, by power struck down;

Some weeping, some praising, while others were

drunkards or

saying:

“They’rc

fools, or in falsehood abound

The

singer

warned: Be not offended

by

these manifestations of the Spirit,

for here is a way of

worship supernaturally inspired.

Regeneration

Evangelicals, though certainly

not

limiting

the Biblical evidence to the book of Acts,

commonly

held that

receiving

the Pentecostal

gift

was

part of the conversion

experience, transforming

nominal Christians and non- Christians into the bom

again.

The

baptism

of the

Spirit

is that initial act of the

Spirit,

at the moment of

regeneration, by

which the

Spirit

comes and takes His abode in the believer.5 As the Reverend E. B. Crisman of the Cumberland

Presbyterian

Church

pointed

out, Peter, when

telling the Jerusalem Christians of the conversion of Cornelius and the others of his

household,

declared … “God

gave

the same

gift

to them as he gave

to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ”

(Acts 11:17, italics

supplied).

Crisman affirmed, “the work of the

Holy Ghost,

in applying

the purifying merits of the

atonement, justification

and sanctifi- cation … this is the

pouring

out of the

Spirit.”6

It

may

be noted that the

experiences

of those converted toward latter

the

part

of the

century

were

gentle

when

compared

with the

experi- ences of

many

at the

beginning

of the

century.

One who

early

on con- tributed to that

change

was the

Disciples

of Christ

evangelist,

Walter Scott,

through

his

exegesis

of Peter’s Pentecost

sermon,

including

its results. As he reported to the

Disciples Mahoning Association, Ohio,

in 1828,

he called on the unconverted to act “rather than to wait

upon uncertain and remote influences.”7 He

accepted

as converted those who

3Richard M’Ncmar The Kentueky Revival

(Cincinnati:

Art Guild

Reprints, 1808), 68.

4Charles A. Johnson, The Frontier

Camp Meeting (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1955), 264.

5William Evens, The Great Doctrines

of the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1912), 116.

6E. B. Chrisman, D.D., Origin and Doctrine

of the Cumberland Church Presbyterian

(St. Louis: Perrin & Smith Book and Job Printers, 1877), 130.

7Winfrcd E. Garrison and Alfred T. DcGroot, The Disciples of Christ, a History

3

130

made “a

simple

confession of

repentance

toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ ” and then

baptized

them “for an immediately

personal acquittal

from their sins

through

the blood of Christ and for the

Holy Spirit.”8

In his words: “The

enjoyment

of the remission

(of sins)

and of the

(gift)

of

Holy Spirit,

is not a

thing

of tomorrow, but of

today- ‘today,’ says God,

‘if

you

will hear

my

voice’-‘And there were added to them that

very day

three thousand souls. “‘9 There had been no

long agonizing prayers,

no

tarrying until …,

no

“praying through.”

Peter’s response

to the

question

at the end of his sermon on the

day

of Pentecost: “What shall we do?”

(Acts 2:38), required,

said Scott, no frenzy

of emotion. The

Holy Spirit

is

granted

in

response

to

simple obedience.

Repent,

be

baptized,

and

you

shall receive the

gift

of the Spirit.

He called his

message

“the

Gospel

Restored.”10

Many

heard it gladly.

.

Sanctification

The Pentecostal event was also

interpreted

as a sanctifying experience, particularly by

the Methodists. Revival

preaching

had focused

upon

the sinner, encouraging

him or her to seek

forgiveness

and the

experience of

being

bom

again, promising

a new life.

Many

came to

testify

to the experience during

the revivals and

yet

their lives did not measure

up

to what

they

believed a Christian

ought

to be.

They

were aware of continu- ing shortcomings.

How should the Christian overcome

persisting

sins? Must one continue to struggle with

temptations

from within one’s whole life

long?

Christian

Perfection

Wesleyan preachers

did not think so.

They

were first on the field with another answer. In the two

previous

decades, they

had

neglected

their uniquely Wesleyan

witness. But in the 1830’s

they

recalled their mis- sion to proclaim Christian

perfection

and how to receive a clean heart. I

I Based on

Scriptural promises,

such as Matt. 5:48, and the

teachings

of John

Wesley, they spoke

of a second work of

grace eradicating

the sin principle,

a further instantaneous

change

of nature. To be

sure, the new birth

brings

about a real

change

in human

nature, they said. The love of God is poured into the heart. But the Christian discovers that his or her love for God and the

neighbor

is mixed with much that is displeasing to the Savior. This

they

attributed to the fact that the root of

sin,

inbred original sin,

still remained in the heart of the

believer, inclining

it to evil. What the Christian needs and God has

promised

is to eradicate this root

(St. Louis: The Bethany Press, 1948), 190.

8Garrison and DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ, 190.

9Garrison and DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ. 190.

lOGarrison and DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ, 188.

11 John Leland Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), 99.

4

131

of sin and so make one’s love for God and

neighbor perfect. Wesleyan holiness

preachers

identified this second work of

grace

with the

Spirit baptism. They

said, surely those gathered

in the

upper

room were already

Christ’s, but they

were

lacking

that

perfect

love which

they needed to

carry

out the

great

commission.

They

were in need of the baptism

in the

Holy

Ghost. The

disciples

tarried in

prayer

until the

gift was

given.

And so should we wait before the Lord until we too are baptized

in the

Spirit.

It may be noted that

Wesley

himself had refused to connect Christian

perfection

with Pentecost.12 John

Fletcher, Wesley’s coworker,

was the one who introduced the view that “adult perfect Christianity …

is

consequent upon

the

baptism

of the

Holy Ghost,

administered

by

Christ Himself.”13

Wesley

believed this to be an erroneous

interpretation.

He

said, “Every true Christian now receives the Holy Ghost as the Paraclete or Comforter

promised by our

Lord.”14 “Every

babe in Christ has received the

Holy

Ghost and the

Spirit witnesses with his

spirit

that he is a child of God. But he has not obtained Christian

perfection.”15

However, on this

point Wesleyan holiness

preachers

followed Fletcher and not

Wesley.

After

1840, Wesleyan

Methodists

regularly

identified the Pentecostal event with their witness to a second work of

graces They

called

upon

the Christian to tarry

in prayer like the

disciples

in the

upper

room until God

grants

the gift.17

For those who heeded the

call,

much

joy usually

marked the moment when

they perceived

their

prayer

answered and their love for God was

perfected. They

were

baptized

in the

Spirit.

Those

Wesleyans who understood the second

blessing

to be the eradication of original sin

.

l2John

Lyndal Staplcs,

“John

Weslcy’s

Doctrine of Christian Perfection: A Rcintcrpretation” (unpublished

Th.D.

dissertation, Department of Christian Theology,

Pacific School of Religion, May 1963), 233.

l3The Works of the Reverend John Fletcher, 4 vols., (New York: Lane and Scott, 1851), II :523.

l4Thomas Jackson, cd., The Works of the Rev. John

Wesley. A.M. 14 vols. (3rd ed.; London: Wesleyan-Mcthodist Book Room, 1831), VIII:104.

15John Telford, ed., The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley. A.M. 8 vols. (London: The Epworth Press, 1931), VI: 146.

16Charles G. Finney, The Promise of the Spirit, compiled and edited

L. Smith.

by Timothy

(Minneapolis: Bcthany

House Publishers,

1980). 25. Smith says

that George

O. Peck, editor of the influential Methodist weekly, the New York Christian Advocate, in the fall of that year “became the first Methodist I know since Fletcher to have equated the experience of entering sanctification with the baptism of the Spirit.” He affirms this reflects Finney’s

use of Pentecostal language for sanctifica- Holy tion. However, one of the founders of Methodism in America, preaching on the doc- trine of Christian perfection, circa 1774 in New York, also used Pentecostal lan- guage.

must receive the Ghost after this

You must be sanctified. But “They (the apostles)

Holy (justification).

you are not. You are only Christian in part. You have not received the

Holy Ghost.” J. F. Hurst, The flistory of Methodism (New York: Eaton &

Mains, 1902), III:1252.

l7Fumey,

The Promise of the Spirit.

5

132

and the

perfection

of Christian love and later were to join

together

to become the “Nazarenes”

consistently

called the

experience

the

baptism of the

Spirit. They

often named their churches “Pentecostal.”] 8

But what about those who had tarried

long

at the altar and

yet

could not claim to have received the second

blessing?

To them Phoebe Palmer was to be the bearer of good news similar to that which Walter Scott had given

to those who had not

“experienced”

conversion

among

the Campbellites.

Palmer had

sought

the

experience

of Christian

perfection without success. Then in July of

1837,

she came to the

insight

that what God wanted of her was “naked faith in a naked

promise,”

a complete commitment to doing God’s will

(putting

all on the

altar) and

then

pub- licly

to

praise

God for

keeping

His

promise

to

sanctify wholly.

These three

things

she must do if she was to receive entire sanctification Taking

these three

simple steps

was the “shorter

way”

to holiness: entire consecration, faith, and public testimony.20

From her own

experience she had learned that the

prolonged

inner

struggle

which

Weslyan

teach- ing

assumed to be

usual,

was not

necessary.

She believed that if one in faith consecrated oneself

wholly,

one was then freed of

any

inclination of the heart inconsistent with love for God.

Therefore,

on the basis of God’s

promise,

one should claim entire sanctification,

unsupported,

if need

be, by any

sensible evidence.21 “The altar sanctifieth the

gift,”

she said. Once the

gift

is on the altar, the consecration made, faith can

only affirm sanctification. Therefore one must

testify

to having received. Not to

testify

was a

sign

of unbelief and an almost certain

way

of

losing

it. Phoebe Palmer believed that the faith for entire sanctification needed to be exercised.

Yes,

she too, after 1856, used Pentecostal

imagery

in speaking

of entire sanctification.22 In 1859, she had

published

The Pro- mise

of the Father; or,

a Neglected Specialty of the Last

Days,

in which she

declared, “holiness

is power.”23 After

Pentecost, Peter, speaking as the

Spirit gave utterance, accomplished

for the Lord in five hours what it would have taken him five

years

to do

without

the

baptism.

Not all

Wesleyans

were convinced

by

her

argument.

In

1858,

Nathan Bangs

confronted Palmer with the

charge

that her claim that one needed no

extra-scriptural

evidence for entire sanctification was a gross error which struck at the heart of experimental

religion.’4

But

many

followed

18Peters, Christian Perfection, 149.

1

l9Charles Edward White The Beauty of Holiness (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1986), 12-22.

20White, The Beauty of 1I0liness, 135–143.

2lWhite, The Beauty of 1I0liness, 140.

22Finney,

The Promise of the Spirit, 25.

23ph?be Palmer, The Promise of the !”ather: or, a Neglected Specialty of the Last Days (Boston: Henry V. Dcgen, 1859), 22.

24Able Stevens, Life and Times of Nathan

Bang, D.D. (New York: Carlton & Porter, 1863), 396-402.

6

133

her

steps

into the Holiness

camp

and testified that

they

had received the Pentecostal

baptism

as Sister Phoebe

taught

it.

The

Higher

Christian

Life

Beginning

in the

thirties,

the holiness movement

developed

a non- Wesleyan wing.

Prominent as leaders and advocates of what came to be called “the

higher

Christian life” were Asa

Mahan,

William Boardman, Hannah

Smith,

and Albert B.

Simpson. Mahan, Boardman,

and

Simp- son were

Presbyterians,

Smith was a

Quaker. They taught

that one entered the

higher

Christian life not

through

an

experience eradicating original sin,

not

through

a

change

of

nature,

but

through becoming aware of Christ within as the Sanctifier, an illumination

experience, coupled

with an act of commitment,

yielding

oneself to Christ’s control. This

gave

one

power

to overcome sin.

(Wesleyans

critical of this view were to call it the

suppression theory).25

Asa

Mahan,

the first

president

of Oberlin

College, may

be considered the father of this distinct

interpretation

of the second

blessing.26

Even prior

to

coming

to Oberlin, Mahan had been

seeking

for the

“grand secret of

holy living.”27

In his first book on the

subject,

entitled

Scrip- ture Doctrine

of Christian Perfection,

he tells how he had

compared

his effort and those Christians around him to live the Christian life with the experience

of the

Apostles

and the first

Christians,

and had felt a marked contrast.28 But

during

the fall of 1836, the second

year

of the

school,

a revival within the student

body

stirred him to a greater effort to find out how this state of affairs could be overcome.

Many

of these Christian students “disclosed to us the cheerless

bondage

in which

they

had been groaning

and asked us if we could tell them how to obtain deliver- ance.”29 Stimulated

by his pastoral

concern for them, Mahan intensified his

inquiry.

It came to him that Paul’s

piety

arose out of a “sympathy with the heart of Christ in his love for lost man.”30 If he could know Christ’s love and

yield

himself

up

to it’s

control,

then he too would live as Paul did. As his attention was fixed

upon Christ,

“in a moment of deep

and solemn

thought,

the veil seemed to be lifted.” He had a vision of the infinite

glory

and love of Christ, as manifest in the

mysteries

of redemption.

His

stony

heart was

replaced

with a heart of love.” From that time on he “esteemed all

things

but loss for the

excellency

of the

25Timothy L. Smith, Called Unto Holiness (Kansas City: Nazarene Publishing House, 1962), 192.

26James H. Fairchild, D.D., “The Doctrine of Sanctification at Oberlin,” The Congregational Quarterly,

XVIII (1876), 238.

27Asa Mahan, Scripture Doctrine

of Christian Perfection (Boston: D. S. King, 1839), 184.

28Mahan, Scipture Doctrine, 185.

29Mahan, Scipture Doctrine, 185.

30Mahan, Scipture Doctrine, 186.

7

134

knowledge

of Christ Jesus.”31 Eternal life had

begun

in his heart.

Through

Asa Mahan’s witness others had a similar

experience.32 At the time of his

experience,

Mahan received what he considered a new

understanding

of the office of the

Holy Spirit.

The

Holy Spirit entering

the

Christian,

testifies

concerning Christ, making

real to the heart the

knowledge

of

Christ,

and

thereby forming

the

image

of Christ within.

Though

he did not

specifically

call this a Pentecostal

event,

it certainly opened

the door wide for such an interpretation, and he walked through

it. His second

major

work on the same

subject having

similar themes, though

it shows

changes

in

emphasis

which I shall consider later, was entitled The

Baptism of the Holy

Ghost.33

Advocates of “the

higher

Christian life” with Mahan all came to iden- tify

the conscious

receiving

of Christ as one’s Sanctifier as the

baptism in the

Holy Spirit.34 They taught

that one must

consciously

receive Christ for ones

justification.

That is to be converted. But one also must receive Him as one’s Sanctifier. That is the

Baptism

of the

Holy Spirit, initiating

one into holiness. Distinct from

justification,

it ideally should follow close behind.35

‘

The Enduement with Power

In mid-century a distinct

interpretation

of an experience subsequent to conversion came to be associated with the term “the

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit,”

in which the center of concern was neither

regeneration

nor holiness or sanctification, but a successful Christian

ministry.

It was said,

the

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit, subsequent

to

conversion,

endues the Christian with

power

to be an effective witness.

John

Morgan,

Asa Mahan, Charles G.

Finney, Dwight

L.

Moody, and Reuben A.

Torrey

made

major

contributions to the

development

of this theme. All were of

Presbyterian background.

However

they

were among

those

Presbyterians

who

disagreed

with the traditional

interpre-

31 Mahan, Scripture Doctrine, 187.

32I shall considcr Charlcs Finncy’s role in this rcvival and his contribution to thc subject

of entire sanctification in another context.

33Asa Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Ncw York: W. C. Palmer, Jr., 1870.

34Mrs. William Edwin Boardman, Life and Labours of the Rev. W. E. Boardman (London:

Bemrose & Sons,

1886), 93; Mahan, Scripture Doctrine, 10, 12; Albert Edward Thompson, The

Alliance

Life of A. B. Simpson (Brooklyn, New York: The Christian

Publishing Co., 1920), 67; Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian’s Secret York:

of a Happy Life (New Flcming H. Rcvcll Co., 1883), 220.

35Albert B. Simpson, the foundcr of the Christian Missionary Alliance, held the

view that the Holy Spirit united with thc incarnate Son of God, of the humanity of Jesus. And so “in receiving Him we just receive the interesting partook

Lord Him- self. Indeed, the Spirit is Christ. Thc secret power in thc Christian’s lifc is to have Jesus dwelling within and so conqucring things that we never could on our own. Thompson, op. cit., 242.

_

8

135

tation of election found

in the Westminster Confession.36

They

believed in the “freedom of the will.” And

yet simply proclaiming

the

Gospel,

it was evident to them, was not

enough

to bring about the desired conver- sions. What was needed,

they

believed,

were

messengers, divinely inspired, guided

and

empowered

to witness

effectively. They

searched the

scriptures

and came to the conclusion the one

thing lacking

is that the witnesses be

baptized

in the

Spirit.

What

they

said was informed

by

the New Testament accounts of Jesus

receiving

the

promise

the

Holy Spirit, the

sayings

about the

Holy Spirit

in the

Gospel

of

John,

and the descriptions

of the

disciples receiving

the

Holy Spirit

in the book of Acts. Their

message

was to take on ever

greater

relevance

during

the latter half of the

century,

when, as Sidney Ahlstrom said,

“American evangelicalism

was no

longer calling

the

shots,

or more

accurately … fewer

people

were

heeding

the call.37

Although

all the other

interpretations

of the

Spirit baptism

which I have

briefly

described have contributed to Pentecostal

pneumatology,

I believe it was this

interpretation

which laid the

thought patterns

founda- tional for the

uniquely

Pentecostal

understanding

of the

Spirit Baptism. And so it is

upon

this view that I wish

particularly

to focus.

John

Morgan’s

View

John

Morgan, professor

of the literature of the New Testament at Oberlin

College, published

an article entitled “The Gift of the

Holy’ Ghost,”

in the

August

1845 issue of the Oberlin

Quarterly

Review.38 He wrote it, he said, “at a time when the interest in the

Higher

Life in Christ was

very great.”39

It

appeared

as an

interpretation

of the same experience

described

by

Asa Mahan in his work

Scripture

Doctrine

of Christian

Perfection,

but as a “strictly

Scriptural

discussion of the sub- ject”

and with an

expanded

sense of its

significance.4?

Like

Mahan, Morgan

also

spoke

of it as a new sense of the divine

indwelling coupled with an illumination. But in describing the

results, Morgan

subordinated the holiness theme to that of effective

witnessing.

,

He said that in an

experience subsequent

to

conversion,

the

Holy Spirit,

Who is with the Christian

prior

to this event, comes to him in a more intimate

relationship.

He enters his

being.

Now the Christian is

Mahan, and Finney belonged to the first faculty of Oberlin College. Mahan 36Morgan, and Finney served as the first and second presidents. Finney and Moody were the most conspicuous evangelists of their day. Torrey was the first president of Moody

Bible Institute, as well as an evangelist in his own right.

Ahlstrom, The Religious History of the American People (New Haven: Yale 37Sidney

University Press, 1974), 733.

38John Morgan, “The Gift of the Holy Ghost,” Oberlin Quarterly Review, I, No. 1 (August 1845), 90-116.

39John

Morgan,

D.D., The Gift of the Holy Ghost, with an introduction C. G.

by

Finny (Obcrlin: E. J. Goodrich, 1875), Preface.

40Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, Preface.

9

136

personally

aware that he is a son of

God, and the truth of the

Gospel

is illumined to him as never before. Thus he is enabled to

proclaim

the Gospel courageously

and

dynamically.

His

prayers

are

amazingly

effec- tive and he even receives divine

guidance.

This both

prepares

and equips

the saint to convert sinners.

article moved in this fashion: In the New

The

argument

in

Morgan’s

Testament it was

promised

to the

disciples

that “John

truly baptized

with water, but

ye

shall be

baptized

with the

Holy

Ghost not

many days hence”

(Acts 1:7),

and Jesus fulfilled his

promise

in the lives of his fol- lowers

initially

on the

day

of Pentecost. Peter

said,

“This is that”

(Acts 2:16).

So

Morgan

affirms that the book of Acts

gives

a

“glowing account of the effects of this effusion of the

Holy Ghost,

of the

super- human

wisdom, energy, boldness,

and success with which the before timid and inefficient

Apostles preached

the

Gospel.”41

The

gift

of the

Holy Spirit,

which the church received for the first time at

Pentecost, is not the same as the

Spirit’s

influence in

converting sinners. It was

promised

to those who

already

believed on the Savior. Jesus said that the Comforter could not be received

by

the world who did not know Him. But He dwelt with the

disciples

and should be in them

(John 14:17). Peter,

in his Pentecost

sermon,

made faith in Jesus

and

repentance

the conditions for

receiving

the

gift (Acts 2:38).42 .

It was

given

to those to whom it was

promised:

to

believing

Jews (including

Jesus’ most intimate

followers),

to believing

Samaritans, and to

pious

men of the household of the

Roman, Cornelius. Paul declared that the

Ephesians

were sealed with the

Holy Spirit

of

Promise,

after they

believed

(Eph. 1:3).

He laid hands on twelve in that

city who,

as believers, had not

yet

received the

Holy

Ghost

(Acts 19:1-7).

To the Galatians, he wrote: “Because

ye

are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit

of his Son into our

hearts, crying, Abba,

Father”

(Gal. 4:6). For Morgan,

this evidence was conclusive. “The

promise

of the

Spirit

must be received

by

faith, and is not

given

in order to produce the first faith that the believer exercises.”43

The

baptism

in the

Spirit

was

given

to

prepare

the saints to convert sinners.

Though

the

Apostles

had been somewhat successful in their ministry prior

to this

baptism,

there was

good

reason that Jesus should bid them

tarry

until

they

be endued with

power

from on

high,

as their

subsequent ministry proved. They

received the

Spirit,

not that

they themselves would be convicted of

sin,

but that the world

might

be con- victed of

sin,

that

many might

be converted

through them,

that

they might

be one with the

Savior,

as He is with the

Father,

and that

they might

receive the

glory

the Father had

given

the Son “in order that the

41 Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, 94. 42Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, 95.. 43Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, 96.

10

137

world

might

believe that the Father had sent Him.”44

. The

baptism

in the

Spirit

did not communicate

power

to perform mir- acles. The

disciples

had such

power

even

prior

to Pentecost. Nor did it consist in the

gift

of tongues, though such

activity

could be an evidence of the

Spirit. Morgan

wrote:

It seems from the history in the Acts that when the Spirit first came, the gift

of tongues frequently if not always, was the external token and evi- dence of his presence. But Paul plainly tells us … (1 Cor. 12), that all who were endued with the Spirit by no means spoke with tongues. Still it will appear upon investigation, that the gift of tongues was a most appropriate

and beautiful symbol of that change in the inner man which the baptism of the Ghost effccted. When the took of the things of Christ and showcd them to them that believed in him and Holy

always Spirit loved him, it seemed as though they needed many languages and

and

many tongues

”

those likc as of fire, to

magnify

and

spcak

forth His wondcrs.45

Morgan

here

anticipated

the conclusion which created the Pentecostal movement. “The

gift

of

tongues

… was the external token and evidence of His

presence.”

And he also formulated the

rejoinder

of those

groups closest to the Pentecostal movement in thought, but who came to oppose it (and from which it was to draw

many

of its adherents). “All who were endued with the

Spirit by

no means

spoke

with

tongues.”

He added that the

baptism

in the

Spirit

could not consist of the

gift

of miracles or the

gift

of tongues, for it was to be a blessing symbolized by an outflow of

living

water from one’s inner

being (John 7:38, 39).

It must be in its essence not an external but an internal

blessing

that “meets the

highest aspirations

of the

pious spirit.”46

The nature of the

gift

of the

Spirit

was

clearly

defined

by

Christ

(John 14, 15, 16).

The

Spirit

of truth comes within to

bring

all

things

to one’s s remembrance, to

guide

into all truth and to show what is to come. He shines into the heart of the saints,

giving

them “the

light

of the knowl- edge

of the

glory

of God in the face of Jesus Christ”

(2

Cor.

4:6).47 Such

high knowledge

of God cannot be achieved

through

the

study’of pious theologies,

nor of the Biblical

literature,

nor even of the words of Christ. The

Apostles prior

to Pentecost were

good men,

but dull of apprehension,

and weak. After Pentecost

“they

knew the

meaning

of things

which till then

they

little understood” and

they

witnessed in power.48 They

had the

interpreter

of

Scripture

within. The Comforter brings

divine illumination.

His

coming

within established a new

relationship

to God:

44Morgan, The Gift of the Iloly Ghost, 96. 45Morgan, The Gift of the lloly

Ghost, 97, 98. 46Morgan, The Gift of the Iloly Ghost, 98. 47Morgan, The Gift of the lfoly Ghost, 100. 48Morgan, The Gift of the Iloly Ghost, 101.

11

138

The Spirit was doubtless given in certain relations and measures before the Lord Jesus Christ was glorified; but he appears to have been then at best the Spirit of servitude, given to guide and comfort servants, who looked

up

to an

approving

Lord and

Sovereign,

on the throne accepted in the heavens

(Rom. 8:15).

But the

Spirit

of Christ, received

by

His Disciples,

was … the Spirit of sonship.49

A real union is established with the Son and with the Father

through

the Holy Spirit. By receiving

the

Holy Spirit within, by partaking

of this “Divine Nature”

(“a

birth

superior

to

conversion”),

Christians are adopted

as sons of the Most

High

and become

“really

children with Christ of the

Living

God! “50

These same two themes

(illumination

and a sense of union with

Deity) dominate the

description

of the

experience

of

entering

the

“higher Christian life”

by receiving

Christ

through

the

Holy Spirit (particularly as formulated

by

Asa

Mahan).

But for

Morgan,

illumination and union with the

Deity by

the

Spirit’s coming

within are

primarily

to make the ministry

effective.

(This,

of course, does not exclude the other

interpre- tation, but rather

places

it in a broader

perspective by introducing

a less self-centered

end.)

The secret of the

early

church’s success was the Spirit

who had come to abide within. With this new sense of

sonship the

disciples

manifest a new

stability,

resolution, and

courage.51

The truth of the

Gospel

was theirs in a new

way

as a “burning power and

glory

to their own

souls,

till

every

fiber of their

being

was instinct with the life of God.”52

Therefore, their testimony was felt to be more than human. Their

prayers, inspired by

the

Holy Spirit,

Who intercedes for the

saints,

were answered in an

astounding

manner.

Occasionally they were even

guided directly (i.e.,

as distinct from

illumination)

in what they

should do or not

do, say

or not

say.

Morgan sought

to protect his

presentation

from what he considered to be

misunderstandings

of it. Though it is true that the

Spirit

is received in a new

way (i.e.,

from “with

you”

to “in

you”)

in the

baptism

in the Spirit,

it is an error to conclude that therefore the

blessing

of the

Spirit may

not thereafter be increase. There is one

baptism,

but there

may

be many

further

infillings

of the

Spirit.

And also, the

blessing

of the

Spirit may

be diminished. The

Spirit may

be

grieved

or

quenched by

the Christian

grown

careless or insensitive to His

presence.

It is also an error to think that because one has the

Spirit,

the Christian needs no other teacher. The

Spirit

does not

generally give knowledge.

He

brings it to remembrance.

Therefore,

the Christian should

seek

instruction from fellow Christians and use one’s intellectual

capacities

to the limit in studying

the

Scripture,

even after one’s

baptism

with the

Spirit.

How

4?’Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, 102. 50Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, 103. 51 Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, 105. 52Morgan, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, 105.

12

139

else can the

Spirit bring things

to one’s remembrance? To think that one can

rely upon

the

Holy Spirit independently

of the

body

of Christ is a vain delusion. Such an

independence

“would be the disastrous occasion of everlasting schism.”53

The

baptism

in the

Spirit

was meant for believers.

According

to the record,

it was

experienced subsequent

to their

original

faith and

repen- tance. Those who

experienced

it knew it. As the

promise

is to all Christians,

it is their

privilege

to have it. It is, indeed, an

indispensable necessity.

Even

good Christians,

without the enduement with

power from on

high,

are not

prepared

to convert the nations to

God,

which is the task God has

given

them.

Therefore, they

should seek it. These were the central

points

in

Morgan’s argument

for the

baptism

in the Holy Spirit.

Asa Mahan’s View

Asa Mahan continued the

development

of the theme that the

baptism

in the

Spirit

is an enduement of power for effective

witnessing.

Mahan had moved on from Oberlin and assumed the

presidency

of Adrian

College in 1859. He

gave

a series of lectures which became the occasion of three revivals

during

his tenure. The

book,

The

Baptism of

the

Holy Ghost, published

in

1870, drawing

on these lectures, had been

germinating

for quite

a period of time.54 To be

sure,

in this work Mahan did not

give up the theme he had

developed

earlier.55 The

baptism

in the

Spirit,

subse- quent

to

conversion,

results in deliverance from

bondage.

It is the entrance into the

glorious liberty

of the sons of God. The model of Christian character, the new man in Christ Jesus, is induced

“by

the indwelling presence, special agency

and influence of the

Holy Spirit.”56 But to this

original

theme of “the

higher

Christian life” he added the new one that

Morgan

had introduced. The

baptism

in the

Spirit

is an endue- ment of power for Christian service. The new theme overshadowed the old one.

Mahan enhanced

Morgan’s argument

that all Christians should have this enduement of power

by pointing

out that

Jesus, too, had been

bap- tized with the

Spirit.

He raised the question: :

‘

Did the development or manifestation of the spiritual life in Christ depend upon

the indwelling, and influence, and baptism of the

the same in all essential

Holy Spirit, particulars

as in us? Did he seek and secure this divine anointing as the necessary condition and means of his finishing

the work which the Father had given him to do, just as we are necessitated to seek and secure the same enduement of power from on

53Morgan, The Gift of the Iloly Ghost, 110.

54Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, 89. 55Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 10.

56Mahan, The Baptism of the lfoly Spirit, 10.

13

140

high, as the immutable means and condition of our finishing the work which

Christ has given us to

Mahan’s

reply

was in the affirmative. Jesus was

baptized

in the

Spirit when the dove descended at His water

baptism

and

again

when the angels

ministered to Him after His fast. He then returned in the

power of the

Spirit

to Galilee. At the

beginning

and

during

His

ministry,

Jesus received

baptisms

of the

Spirit

as He

prayed

for the

anointing.

That He received them indicated that He needed them. The manner in which Jesus

spoke

and what He said are

directly

related to the

Spirit

which was

given

to Him without measure. He

spoke

the truth in power. And if the

spotless

Christ needed this transformation, how much more does the believer need to be endued with

power

from on

high,

to

carry

out the Christian’s mission?58 It is

presumption

not to

tarry

in

consecration, faith,

and

prayer

until

spiritually baptized.

Using

Christ’s

experience

as a

guide

to

understanding

the

meaning of the

baptism

in the

Spirit,

it is

clearly

evident that the result of this baptism goes

far

beyond

sanctification. For

though

“the life and char- acter of our Savior were

absolutely pure,” through

His

“baptism

of love,

knowledge

and

power”

He “ascended from forms of

perfect human and

perfect

divine manifestations to others far

higher

and more impressive.”59

In his

description

of the source, nature, and result of the

experience, Mahan is

generally

similar to

Morgan. Through

the

baptism

in the Spirit,

which is

subsequent

to conversion, the Comforter, Who was with the

Christian, comes to abide

in the Christian. The

experience

of the

Spirit’s presence

is an earnest, a foretaste of the life of heaven:

joy, peace,

and

glory (Eph. 1 : 14). It is

a

seal, assuring

the

Christian,

as he never knew it

before,

that one’s sins are blotted out and that one is adopted

as a son of God

(Eph. 1: 13).60 In the Holy Spirit,

the Christian has

fellowship

with the Father

through

the

Son,

and he has free access to the throne of

grace

in

prayer.

As a result of the

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit,

one has the same

power

in

prayer

that Jesus

possessed.61 When the

Spirit enters,

He

gives soul-transforming apprehensions

of divine truth:

The baptism of the Spirit is often given, most often

perhaps,

in this manner: the presentation of some great and essential truth of the Gospel to the mind, and that in such a form and vividness, that that truth ever after becomes an omnipresent and all vitalizing principle in the soul, a

57Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 21. 58Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 25. 59Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 25. 60Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 40-41. 61 Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 33.

14

141

great central light, which renders all other forms of revealed truth luminous and life equally

imparting.62

This had been Mahan’s

experience

which, he believed, was similar to that of the

Apostles.

How limited had been their vision of

truth, and, therefore,

how weak their faith! What

cowards,

how

worldly minded, “how weak their mutual love.”63 And afterwards:

power, unity

of

spirit, boldness, and

courage.

The

anointing

of the

Spirit

illuminates the truth which

quickens

and

enlarges thought, inspires spiritual emotions,

and energizes

moral

activity.

There is a vast

expansion

of intellectual, moral, and

spiritual powers.

To all who are

baptized

in the

Spirit,

the

Spirit gives power

to proph- esy.

Mahan defines

prophecy

in this context as the

power

of utterance for the edification of the church and the conversion of sinners.64 It is speaking

with an unction which is recognized as divine. The

special gift of

speaking

with

tongues

was

granted

to a few, declared

Mahan,

but the special gift

of prophecy, of

speaking

the word with

boldness,

is for all in this

dispensation.65

Those who receive the

baptism

in the

Spirit

are given

such a vision of God and Christ that

they

are filled with

burning truth.

They

must

speak

of the wondrous works of God and

magnify

the Lord. Truth

apprehended through

illumination is as fire shut

up

in the bones.66 Such

baptisms

with the

Spirit

were

granted

to a few in the old dispensation (to

Enoch

perhaps,

to Jacob at

Bethel,

to Moses when the Lord descended in the cloud

[Ex. 33:34],

to Saul

[Sam. 10:9-13],

to Elisha

[2 Kings 2:9-15]).67

The fundamental difference between that dispensation

and the

present

is that what was

granted

to a few then

may be the common

privilege

of all Christians now. Mahan’s affirmation that the universal result of the

baptism

in the

Spirit

is a gift of utterance fore- shadows the same affirmation

by

the Pentecostals.

However, he believed it to be prophecy;

they, tongues.

But

first,

a further

step

was taken in this

developing interpretation. Mahan,

in

referring

to Saul’s

baptism

in the

Spirit,

said that “the new heart

given

to Saul was not, we

suppose,

a holy but a kingly state of mind-a state

by

which he was

fully qualified

for his new office.”68 This comment indicates that a definition of the results of the

baptism

in the

Spirit,

as power for

service,

which overshadowed the definition of the

result,

as holy living, could even

push

this latter one aside. And that is precisely what

happened.

62Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 104. 63Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 77. 64Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 32. 65Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 49. 66Mahan, The Baptism of

the Holy Spirit, 64. 67Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 65. 68Mahan, The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 65.

15

142

Charles G.

Finney’s

View

Charles Grandison

Finney

was the first one

clearly

to state the

baptism in the

Spirit

was not an

experience

of sanctification at

all,

but was exclusively

an enduement of

power

for service. This

step

occurred late in his

life,

after a successful

evangelistic

and

teaching ministry.69 The

meeting

of the National Council of

Congregational

Churches in 1871 was held at Oberlin

College. Finney,

the

grand

old man of Oberlin, who was then

eighty,

was invited to speak. He chose the same theme as Asa Mahan’s

recently published

book: The

Baptism of

the Holy

Ghost. A question

prompted by

his lecture led him later to write an article

published

in The

Independent

entitled “The Enduement of the Holy Spirit.,,70

It included both a review of what he had said and his answer to the

problem

it had raised.

This article and several

others,

which also

appeared

in The

Indepen- dent, were

finally published

in tract form

by

the Willard Tract

Reposi- tory.

The articles were entitled “The Enduement of the

Spirit,”

“Power from on

High,”

“Enduement of Power from on

High,”

and “It Is a Hard Saying.”71

Speaking

to the

Council, Finney

declared that the life work of

every Christian is to convert the world. In order to do this, Christians must be baptized

in the

Holy Spirit.

“The enduement of

power

from on

high, Christ has informed us, is the

indispensable

condition of

performing

the work which he has set before us.”72 We cannot

expect

success without it.

We shall receive the

promise,

which was made to all

Christians, by following

the

example

of the

disciples. “They

first consecrated them- selves

(Finney’s italics)

to the work, and continued in

prayer

and

sup- plication

until …

they

received this

promised

enduement from on

We must consecrate ourselves to God and we must

pray

with anticipation.

Few are endued with

power today, though

this is the constant

subject of

prayer.

But there is

good

reason.

Iniquity

is in our

hearts; therefore, God will not hear. We are

self-indulgent, uncharitable, censorious,

self- dependent, resentful, revengeful,

dishonest, selfish,

impatient.

In other

had bccn Mahan’s collcaguc at Obcrlin from thc beginning and assumcd the 69Finncy

presidency when Mahan resigned in 1851. He served the school in this capacity as well as

being its professor of thcology until hc retired in 1866 to write his Memoirs and

numerous articlcs.

70Charlcs Grandison

Finney,

“The Enducmcnt of the Holy Spirit,” The Inde- pendent, XXIII, no. 1203 (December 21, 1871 ).

7lCharlcs Grandison Finney, Power From on Who May Expect the Endue- ment. Boston: Willard Tract Repository, 1872.

72Finncy, “The Enduemcnt of the Holy Spirit.”

73Finney, “The Enducment of the Holy Spirit.”

16

143

words,

we lack entire consecration.74 Worst of all, we do not

really expect

to receive the

baptism

with the

Spirit.

Thus, since God has promised

it,

we call Him a liar. However, if in faith we

prevail

in prayer,

then it is certain that we shall receive the

promise,

and we shall be successful in winning souls.

This

presentation

at the

Council, however,

had raised a question: “If we first

get

rid of all the forms of sin which

prevent

our

receiving

this enduement,

have we not

already

obtained the

blessing?

What more do we need?”75

Finney

answered that the

question

rested on a misapprehension:

There is a grcat difference between the peace and power of the

in the soul. The

Holy Spirit disciples

were Christians bcfore the

day

of Pentecost, and as such had a measure of the Holy Spirit. must have had the peace of sins forgivcn, and of a justified state; but They yet they had not the cnducmcnt of power necessary to the accomplishment of the work assigned them. They had the peace which Christ had given them, but not the power which he had promised. This bc true of all Christians; and right

hcrc

is,

I

think,

the mistake may of the church, and of the ministry. They rest in conversion,

great

and do not scck until

they obtain this cnducmcnt of

power

from on

high. Hcnce,

so

havc no

many professors power

with either God or man. They prevail with neither. They cling to a hope in Christ, and even enter the

thc admonition to wait until

ministry, ovcrlooking thcy arc endued with power from on high.76

‘

The

question

rested on the erroneous

assumption

that the

gift

received in the second

blessing

was sanctification. To

sanctify

oneself is a prerequisite

for

receiving

the

blessing,

but it is not identical with the

gift one

expects.

The

gift

is an enduement of power for Christian service. Finney,

believed that sanctification was an act of consecration. There- fore,

it could not itself be

divinely given, though

it was

divinely pre- pared

for

by

the

presentation

of the

Gospel by

the

Holy Spirit through human

agents.

In his

Memoirs, Finney

recalled that even

during

the revival of 1836 at Oberlin, which had initiated the formulations of what was to be called the “Oberlin doctrine,” he had taken the

liberty

of adding

this

point

to a sermon

by

Asa Mahan on the

subject

of sanctification.

I observed in the course of his preaching that he had left one point untouched, that appeared to me of great importance in that connection. … I arose and

pressed

the

point

that he had omitted. It was the distinction between desire and will…. I saw or thought I saw, that the pressing

of the distinction just at this point would throw much

the

light upon question whether they were really Christians or not, whether

?4Finncy, “Thc Enducmcnt of the Holy Spirit,” op. cit. 75Finney, “The Enduemcnt of the Holy Spirit,” op. cit. t. ?6Finney, “Thc Enducmcnt of thc Holy Spirit,” op. cit.

‘

17

144

they were really consecrated persons, or whether the mercly had dcsircs without

being in fact willing to do the will of God.

7

The sinner’s choice to serve God rather than self makes a Christian This

change

in the choice of ultimate ends is evidence that one has faith in Christ and

repents.

It is

synonymous

with sanctification which “consists in the will’s

devoting

or

consecrating

itself and the whole being,

… to the service of It

precedes

one’s

justification,

for the condition of

justification

is both faith and

repentance,

which are manifest in one’s consecration.g? The

separation

which Mahan made

(in his

book, Christian Perfection)

between

receiving

Christ for justification and later

receiving

him for sanctification was a theological impossibility for

Finney.

He believed that at the moment of conversion, sanctification is entire, in the sense that one

fully

consecrated oneself to God. But

probably

it is not entire in the sense that this consecration remains consistent and con- firmed.81 To the extent that the “law” is

thoroughly preached prior

to one’s conversion and Christ is fully revealed at that time or

immediately subsequent

to it, to that extent the convert will be a stable Christian. If one is

fully

aware of the nature of the

Godly

life and the divine

judg- ment which falls

upon

the

ungodly,

if one

really

knows one’s own transgressions

and one’s

impending doom,

but for Christ, if one is fully aware of the love which

prompted

His sacrifice and is captured

by

it so that one would serve no other

master,

then one’s consecration will remain

unwavering.

Because most often the

young

Christian has had self-gratification

as the ultimate end for

many years,

his or her senses related to these

objects

are still

tremblingly

alive.

Therefore, he or she must be

brought

to fresh realizations of his or her sins. And he or she must have new revelations of Christ. The

power

of

temptation

to self- gratification

is broken when Christ is revealed so as

“completely [to] ravish and

engross

one’s affections,” so that one would sooner die than sin

against

him.82 When

temptation

comes,

the Christian turns in his or her

imagination

to Christ and commits the self to Him afresh. And when turning

to Christ in the moment of

temptation

has become a

habit, then consecration is consistent. Consistent consecration is entire sanctification.

But what about the

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit?

It is evident that

Finney

77Garth M. Rosell & Richard A. G. Dupuis, Editors, The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney,

The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), 407, 408.

78Charles Grandison

Finney, Systematic Theology, ed. J. H. Fairchild (South Gate, California: Colportcr Kcmp, 1944), 287.

79Finney, Systematic Theology, 405.

391.

8 80Finney, Systematic Theology,

Finney, Systematic Theology, 405-406.

82Finncy, Systematic Theology, 443.

18

145

had

changed

his mind about its

purpose.

In

May

and June of

1840,

he had written two letters addressed “To Ministers of The

Gospel

of All Denominations. “83 He had said “the

baptism

of the

Holy

Ghost is a thing universally promised

or

proffered

to Christians under this

dispen- sation…. this

blessing

is to be

sought

and received after conversion. “84 Converts “need to be

baptized

into the

very

death of Christ and

by

this baptism

be slain and buried and

planted

and crucified and raised to a life of holiness in Christ.”85 Ministers without this

baptism

with the

Holy Ghost will remain

“spiritually inefficient,

in bondage to sin and lust.”H6 From these words it is evident that

Finney

was

thinking

of the

Spirit baptism

as a gift of sanctification to be

sought.

The Methodist,

George Peck, could understand

what

Finney

said in a

Wesleyan

sense and applaud

him as an

ally. But, beginning

in

1841, Finney

revised his anthropology

under the

philosophical

or

psychological insight,

that one can will

only

one

thing

at a time, “the

simplicity

of moral action.” It is impossible

to choose

good

and evil at the same time.87 This is what had led him to the thesis: that if one is consistent in one’s consecration then one is entirely sanctified. He abandoned the

assumption

that entire sanc- tification could be a

gift

of God.88 Thus he distanced himself from Mahan’s

teaching

of the

“higher

Christian life.” And Peck, it

may

be observed, revised

his

opinion

of the “Oberlin doctrine.”

Finney,

he said, was

teaching

a legalistic view of Christian

perfection89

And this had

brought

about a change in Finney’s understanding of the baptism

of the

Spirit.

Sanctification is an act of consecration. But the enduement with

power

for Christian service is a divine

gift

which

he, himself, had

received even before he knew what to call it.

(It

is

likely that John

Morgan’s

article,

“The Gift of the

Holy Ghost,” gave Finney the Biblical framework in which to rethink his own

experience,

for in the introduction of a

reprint

of the

article,

published

in

1875, Finney wrote,

“It

greatly

stirred

my

heart on its first

publication.”9?) Now, looking back ,

he recalled that

shortly

after his conversion he had “received a mighty baptism of the

Holy

Ghost.”91

83Charles G. Finncy, The Promise of the Spirit, 259-265.

g4Finney, The Promise of the Spirit, 262.

85Finney, The Promise of the Spirit, 262.

86Finney, The Promise of the Spirit, 265.

87Barbara Brown Zikmund, “Asa Mahan and Oberlin Pcrfcctionism”

( Duke of

University, Department Religion, 1970), 178.

88Zikmund, “Asa Mahan and Obcrlin Perfectionism,” 180.

Doctrine of Christian Perfection Stated and Defended: With a Critical and Historical Examination 89Scripture

of the Controversy Ancient and Modern (New York: Lane and

Sanford, 1842), 225.

90John

Morgan,

The Gift of the Iloly Ghost, with an introduction

by

C. G. Finney,

ii.

91 Rosell & Dupuis, cds., The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, 23.

19

146

‘

Without expecting it, without ever having the thought in my mind that there was any such thing for me, without any recollection that I had ever heard the

thing mentioned by any person

in the world, at a momcnt entirely unexpected by me, the Holy Spirit descended upon me in a man- ner that seemed to go

through me, body and soul. I could fccl the impression,

like a wave of electricity, going through and through me. Indeed it seemed to come in waves, and waves of infinite love;-for I could not cxprcss it in other way. And it did not sccm like watcr, but rather [as] the brcath any

yct

of God. I can recollect distinctly that it sccmcd to fan me, like immense wings, and it seemed to me, as these waves passed

over me, that thcy literally moved my hair like a passing brccze.

No words can cxprcss the wondcrful love that was shed abroad in

heart. It seemed to me that I should burst. I aloud with and love my

and I do not know but that I should

wept joy

say I literally bellowed out thc unut- tcrable

gushings of

heart. These waves came ovcr me, and over me,

and over me, one after the my

other, until I recollect I cried out, “I shall die

if these wavcs continue to pass ovcr me.” I said to the Lord, “Lord, I

cannot bear any more,” yet I had no fear of dcath.92

Prior to this

experience

he had feared he

might

have to

give up

his profession

as a lawyer in order to preach. After it, he was

quite willing. In

fact, he was

“unwilling

to do

anything else,”93

and he was amazed by

the effect his witness had on others.94 “An invisible but all

subduing power” accompanied

his

ministry.95

This he documented in his Memoirs.

He was convinced that the enduement of power which he had received was the

really great

need of the church and that all Christians

might receive it. Without this addition of “marvelous

power

to

impress

God’s saving

truth

upon

the soul” all other human

capabilities

are of no avail.96 But even with

only

little

learning,

a Christian

baptized

with the Spirit

can be a very efficient soul winner. This enduement of

power

is a “gift,

an

anointing, instantaneously

received.”97 It can increase or decrease

according

to one’s faithfulness in one’s

ministry.

But it is ridiculous to substitute

culture,

human

learning, eloquence

or

any

such thing

for the divine enduement.98

Finney

was so convinced that the baptism

with the

Spirit

was

indispensable

to successful

ministry

that he proposed

it be made the

primary qualification

for a theological

profes- sorship

and the

pastoral

office. The lack of it should be

regarded

as dis- qualifying

a person for

any

church-related office.99

.

92Rosell & Dupuis, cds., The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, 23.

93Rosell & Dupuis, eds., The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, 27-28.

94Rosell & Dupuis, eds., The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, 29.

95Finney, “Power from on High,” 4.

96Finney, “Power from on High,” 6, 14-15.

97Finney, “Power from on High,” 18-19.

98Finney, “Power from on High,” 18-19.

“Power from on High,” 20-21. What Finney had said in 1840 about the 99Finney, need for entire sanctification,

calling it the baptism of the holy Ghost, he now

20

147

The commission to convert all nations had been

given

to all Chris- tians. Joined to the

great

commission was the

promise

of

power,

on the condition of tarrying before God. Therefore,

every

Christian

may expect the enduement of

power

if one meets the conditions. Faced with the great

work of the world’s

conversion,

one feels the same

inadequacy that the

disciples

felt for this

great

task. One must follow their

example in self-renunciation

(dying

to all

things

which the world can

offer)

and prayer (unceasing

and

persistent)

until the enduement

comes,

if one is to follow in their

footsteps

to a successful

ministry:

Every Christian possesses a measure of the Spirit of Christ; cnough of the

Holy Spirit to lead us to true consecration and inspire us with the

faith that is essential to our prcvalcnce in prayer.

Lct us gct on the altar with all we have and are, and lie there and

in

persist

prayer till wc receive the enduement.100

It

may

be noted that

Finney’s description

of the

experience

itself is strikingly

similar to Wesleyan

descriptions

of the second

blessing, i.e., overflowing

love shed abroad in the heart. In contrast with

Morgan’s and Mahan’s

description,

illumination as an element,

perhaps

the central element, is missing.

Morgan

and Mahan had both used the word

“tarry”

to indicate how

one is to receive the

gift

of the

Spirit. Finney agreed

with them. He clearly spelled

out that it is a gift and that it is received

by consecrating oneself to God and

waiting

in

prayer

until the

experience

comes.

(This is also close to the

Wesleyan

view of how to receive Christian

perfec- tion.)101 Finney

was reticent to call the

baptism

with the

Spirit

“receiv- ing

the

Spirit.”

The

statement,

that the

Spirit,

Who was with the Chris- tian, enters

and indwells the Christian

baptized

in the

Spirit,

does not occur. The idea that the

baptism

in the

Spirit

introduces a new relation- ship

to Deity is also not

expressed. Finney

said it was an enduement of power by

the

Spirit:

“This

baptism

of the

Holy Ghost,

this

thing promised by

the

Father,

this enduement of power from on

high.”102 Finney

believed that the

experience

was an enduement of

power

for a supernaturally

effective

ministry.

It was neither a second work of

grace, nor

entering

the

“higher

Christian life,” nor even an enduement of power

for victorious

living.

He had freed his

presentation

of it from this element

traditionally

associated with an

experience subsequent

to

said about this enduement with power.

10OFinney, “Power from on High,” 9.

101But it ran counter to those advocates of the “higher Christian Life,” such as Boardman and Smith, who believed that one should enter it by consecrating oneself, to be sure, but then that one should simply appropriate the promise as fulfillcd and not tarry for a particular experience. William Edwin Boardman, The Higher Christian Life (Boston: Henry Hoyt, 1858), 52.

Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian’s Secret of

a Happy Life (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1883), 144.

102Finney, “The Enduemcnt of the Holy Spirit,” op. cit.

21

148

conversion. And for two reasons which bear

repeating:

He believed the enduement of power was a divine

gift,

and he believed that “sanctifica- tion” or victorious

living

could not be

granted

from above.

Though

his view of the

Spirit baptism

was

developed

late in his

life,

it was to have far-reaching

effects.

Dwight

L.

Moody’s

View

Dwight Lyman Moody

also believed that there was a divine

empower- ing experience subsequent

to conversion which all Christians could receive. He followed

Finney’s interpretation

of

it, calling

it “the

baptism of the

Holy Spirit

for service.”103

Moody

had such an experience in 187I.

During

the

great Chicago fire, between October 8 and October

11, 1871, Moody lost

a house

recently completed

and a new church

building. ??

In order to raise funds for a temporary

church

building,

he went east on a

preaching

mission. And so in November of that

year

he was in New York; there he

experienced this

spiritual

crisis. One

night

he walked the streets of that

city

in dis- tress,

praying,

“Oh

God,

anoint me with

Thy Spirit!”105

In

recalling that

incident, four

years later, Moody

said:

God heard him … and gave him right on the strcet what he had for … Words could not

begged

cxprcss the inllucncc upon him … He had been to

trying pump water out of a wcll that sccmcd dry … He pumpcd with all his

might and little water came … Thcn God had madc his soul like an artesian well that could never fail of wnicr. 1 °6

Moody thought

he could

identify

three classes of Christians: the con- verted but silent

kind; the converted

and

testifying kind,

but without power;

and then the “artesian well

people,”

out of whose bellies flow rivers of

living

water.l0? These

people

have been filled with the

Spirit. Everybody

around them feels their influence.108

This

gift

should not be limited to the few. “The rank and file of the Church need this

baptism

of the

Holy Spirit just

as much as the preacher.”109

It is the

pre-requisite

for successful soul “If Christ needed the

(Luke 4:24).110

The

winning.

Spirit,

do not we?”

disciples were

baptized

with the

Spirit

and then witnessed to Christ.

Stephen,

103D”?,ight Lyman Moody, Moody: flis Words, Work, and Workers, ed. W. H. Daniels (New York: Nelson & Phillips, 1877), 396. Hcreaftcr referred to as Moody.

104Richard Ellsworth Day, Bush Aglow (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1936), 134.

lOSIyay, Bush Aglow,

137. William R. Moody, The Life of Dwight L Moody (New York: Fleming H. Rcvcll Co., 1900), 149.

106M?y,

The Life of Dwight L Moody, 149.

107Moody, The Life of Dwiyht L Moody, 149.

108M?y, Moody, 398.

109M?dy, Moody, 398.

174. 11 Dwight

Lyman Ivloody, Bible Readings (San Francisco: Bacon & Co., 1881),

22

149

filled with the

Spirit, spoke

irresistible wisdom.

Paul, filled with the Spirit, preached

Christ. Barnabas was filled with the

Spirit,

and

many were added to the church.

Many

more shall be

brought

to believe on Christ if we seek this

power

and are filled with the

Holy Spirit

so that our witness will be effective, even as was theirs. I I I

Like

Finney, Moody

sensed the

difficulty

with the

formula,

“He

[the Spirit]

is with

you

and shall be in

you,”

which

Morgan

and Mahan had used to describe the divine

change

that occurred in the

baptism

in the Spirit.

Could one

deny

that the

Spirit

indwells

every

Christian?

Moody answered that the

Spirit

does dwell

within,

but He does not dwell within “in

power.” Though

He dwells

within,

“in some sense and to some extent” in every believer, there is yet another

gift,

“the

gift

of the

Holy Spirit

for service …

entirely

distinct and

separate

from conversion and assurance.”II2 The

disciples

received the

Spirit

when Jesus breathed on them after His resurrection, but

they

tarried in

prayer

in Jerusalem for the

baptism

with the

Spirit.113

For Jesus had

promised:

“Ye shall receive

power

after that the

Holy

Ghost is come

upon you” (Acts 1:8). “The

Holy Spirit

in us is one

thing,

and the

Holy Spirit

on us is another.”114

Moody sought

to solve the

problem

with a new formula: He is in

you

and shall come

upon you.

He exhorted Christians to

tarry until

they “get

this

power”

for

witnessing.115

Moody’s

answer is still

plagued

with

ambiguity.

Does “in some sense and to some extent” mean the Christian has

really

received the

Spirit?

If one has received the

indwelling Spirit,

can the

Spirit

have entered stripped

of His

power?

Was the

gift

of the

Spirit

a special

anointing,

an abiding anointing perhaps?

If

so,

then the Christian receives an “it” rather than Him when

baptized

in the

Spirit,

for the

Spirit already

abides within.

Moody’s

answer tended toward this conclusion. But

Moody also knew that in the

terminology

of

Acts,

the

baptism

in the

Spirit

is actually equated

with

receiving

the

Spirit. Therefore,

in order to

stay true to his own belief that the Christian receives the

Spirit

at conversion and

yet

do justice to the record in Acts, he fell

upon

the

play

of

words, “He is in

you

and shall come

upon you,”

to

distinguish

between two manners and thus two

experiences

of

receiving

the

Spirit.

This was his formula for

solving

the

inherently contradictory problem

of how one can receive the

abiding Spirit

twice.

Moody

did not hold that the

experience brought

about the

relationship of

sonship

to the

Deity,

nor was it

necessary

to assure the Christian of

–

1 1 Moody, Moody, 402, 403.

112Moody, Moody, 396.

113 Moody, Bible Readings, 174.

Moody, Secret Power (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, 1881), 45. 114D”?,ight Lyman

115 Moody, Secret Power, 45.

23

150

one’s

standing.

116 For

the Christian becomes a son of God when born again (converted),

and the

only

assurance one needs is the divine promise

in Scripture. 117

Moody agreed

with

Finney

that the

baptism

with the

Spirit

is an enduement with

power,

and not a gift of Christian

perfection.

But their agreement

rested

upon diverging

views of “man’s”

ability

to be sancti- fied

wholly. Finney

believed that one could reach a state of entire sanc- tification without such a gift, while

Moody

doubted that one could reach such a state in this life at all. He was more

pessimistic:

Some people seem to think they have got away from thc flcsh, and that

they

are soaring away in a sort of seventh heaven, but thcy gct back

again

sooner or later. 118 8

Moody

believed that one did receive a perfect nature when

by

faith one received Christ as savior. It was

supernatural

and could not sin. But one also retained one’s

fleshly

nature. Therefore, the Christian would always

be in a struggle, subduing one’s

fleshly nature, day by day,

until finally

at death one

put

it off forever.

119

Moody’s description

of how one receives the

Spirit baptism

did not include the idea that one had to reach a particular level of holiness before one could receive the

gift (Finney’s

instructions could be

interpreted in this

way),

for the

necessary

clean heart could be received in a moment.120 One who receives God’s

remedy

for sins is sanctified. Christ’s

righteousness

is reckoned to that one as his or her

righteous- ness. One’s sins are

forgiven.

One is clean.121 The essential conditions for

being baptized

in the

Spirit

are to believe the

promise,

to confess one’s sins and to wait in

prayer

until the

power

comes.122 “If we seek for this

gift

of the

Holy Spirit

we shall find it.”123 One need not have advanced to a high level of Christian

maturity

to meet these conditions. Reuben A.

Torrey’s

View

The distinctive

thought pattern

associated with the term

“baptism

in the Spirit,” prior

to the Pentecostal movement, finds its culmination in the work of Reuben Archer

Torrey.

He not

only

summarized the ideas of Finney

and

Moody,

but also

provided

new elements in his

presentation which were

particularly significant

as the

bridge

to the

emphasis

devel- oped

in the Pentecostal movement. He

clearly

stated that the enduement

116Moody, Moody, 391.

117D?,ight Lyman Moody, The Gospel Awakening (Chicago: J. Fairbanks and Company, 1878),

349.

118Moody, Moody, 413.

119Moody, Moody, 383.

120Moody, Moody, 392.

121 Moody, rl?loody, 399, 367.

122Moody, Moody, 399.

123Moody, Moody, 399.

24

151

with

power

manifests itself in the

gifts

of the

Spirit

and that these mani- festations were the evidence of the

baptism

in the

Spirit.

The Pentecostal movement

developed

the idea of the

relationship

of the

baptism

in the Spirit

to the

gifts

of the

Spirit.

It began with the assurance that it had at last discovered the initial evidence of the

baptism

in the Spirit.

Torrey

defined the

baptism

in the

Spirit

as “a definite

experience

of which one

may

know whether he has received it or not,”

separate

and distinct from and

subsequent

to the

Spirit’s regenerating

work.124 It is “always

connected with

testimony

and service.”125

He insisted that the Biblical

usage

indicated that the term,

“baptism

in the

Spirit,”

should be limited to the initial

experience,

while

subsequent experiences

should be

called, “being

filled with the

Spirit.”126

Others had

spoken

of fresh

baptisms

in the

Spirit. Torrey objected

to this terminology

for it tended to blur the

uniqueness

of the

original

event in the Christian’s

life, parallel

to the conversion event.

The

purpose

of the

baptism

in the

Spirit

was not to cleanse from sin. It did not eradicate one’s sinful nature. Like

Moody, Torrey

believed one carried this nature to the

grave.

The

Spirit, itself, however,

does cleanse from

sins,

and

beyond

that it also

strengthens

the believer with

might

in the “inner

man,” implanting

Christ’s

image

there.

Torrey agreed

with the

teaching

of the

“higher

Christian life” that Christ dwells in the heart by

faith so that the Christian

may

be victorious indeed over the carnal nature. But this is an hour to hour walk in the

Spirit.

It is not an eradication of the sinful nature nor is this the

baptism

in the

Spirit,.127

A moral

uplift

does

accompany

the

Spirit baptism

as a result of the preparation (i.e., prayer

and

consecration)

one makes to receive it. But it is primarily an enduement of

power

for service.

128

This

power

will manifest itself in the

diversity

of the

gifts

of the

.

Spirit. Torrey quoted

1 Cor.

12:4-11,

to

support

his contention. In his earlier

study

of the

subject (perhaps

with

Morgan

and Mahan as guides), he wondered: “If one is

baptized

with the

Holy Spirit,

will he not

speak with

tongues?”129

But then he had read, “Do all

speak

with

tongues?” (1 Cor. 12:30).

Next he

thought (perhaps

from

reading Finney)

that the one thus

baptized

received

power

to be an

evangelist

or

preacher.

But this was

equally wrong,

for there are “diversities of

gifts” (1 Cor. 12:4). (This

view had led to

disappointments. Many, having

had the

experi- ence, promptly expected

to be

great evangelists.

And

they

were not. Others had been led

by

it to the

presumption

that

they

could

rely

on

124Reuben Archer

Torrey,

The Baptism with the

Holy Spirit (New

York: Fleming

H. Revell, 1895), 10, 11.

125Torrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 13.

126Torrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 56.

127Tor,i.ey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 15.

128Torrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 15.

‘–Torrey,

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 16.

25

152

divine illumination and need not

study.

Worst of all, it led to indiffer- ence toward the

gift among

those who did not

expect

to become preachers.)130

Nor was the

power simply

the

power

to

perform

mira- cles. But it was miraculous

power,

manifest

through

the

diversity

of the gifts

of the

Spirit, according

to the

sovereign

will of the

Spirit,

with the end in view: to convince, convict, and convert sinners.131

Torrey

wrote:

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God coming upon the believer, taking possession of his faculties, imparting to him gifts not his

naturally own, but which qualify him for the service to which God has called him.132

Torrey

took account of those who

objected

to the

teaching

that one receives the

Spirit

in an

experience subsequent

to conversion. How

could this be affirmed when

Scripture clearly

states that if anyone does not have the

Spirit,

one does not

belong

to Him

(Romans 8:9). Torrey readily agreed

that one received the

Spirit

at conversion,

“but,” he went on,

“it is

quite possible

to have

something, yes,

much of the

Spirit’s presence

and work in the

heart,

and

yet

come short of that

special

full- ness and work known in the Bible as the

baptism

or

filling

with the Holy Spirit.”133

The

receiving

of this

special

fullness of the

Spirit

is subsequent

to conversion.

(Torrey

thus

suggested

that there are

degrees of the

Spirit’s

fullness. But outside of

calling

it a special

degree

of full- ness he did not indicate how full of the

Spirit

one must be to be consid- ered

Spirit baptized.)

That this

experience

is also called in the Bible “receiving

the

Spirit”

is evident from the Acts accounts. For

example, Peter and John

prayed

for

young

converts that

“they might

receive the Holy Ghost;

for as

yet

He was fallen

upon

none of

them,

and

they received the

Holy

Ghost”

(Acts 8:14-16).134 Therefore,

those who rejected

the

reality

of the

experience

because

they objected

to this termi- nology

were

objecting

to a Biblical

designation

for a Biblical

experience. This indicated to him the

specious reasoning

in,

and the

quibbling

char- acter of, the

objection.

Torrey

introduced a new element into his

description

of how one is to

.

obtain the

baptism

in the

Spirit.

It is for all who

repent

of sin, surrender wholly

to God’s

will,

desire the

experience intensely,

harbor the motive of

honoring

God with the

gift

of

power

received, and

pray

with

expec- tation. This was not new. But then

Torrey

added:

appropriate

it by faith. Actually,

the idea of

appropriating

a divine

promise

was not new either. Phoebe Palmer had

taught

that. It was also considered the usual

way

in

130-rorrey, The Baptism with the Itoly Spirit, 17, 18. 131Torrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 29, 30. 132Toi.r.ey, The Baptism with the lioly Spirit, 20. 133Torrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit. 42. 134-1-orrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 43.

26

153

which one entered the

higher

Christian

life.135 But it had not been

applied

within the context of this

pattern

of interpretation of the

baptism in the

Holy Spirit.

Torrey

said: meet the conditions, ask for the

gift,

claim the

gift,

and act as one who has it,

by

faith. If one meets the conditions one

may expect

that God will honor his

promise.

If there is a “total surrender” (consecrating

oneself to

God),

“true

desire,”

“definite

prayer,”

and “simple faith,”

God fulfills his

promise.

136 If

God

says, “you

have the petition

when

you

ask for

it,”

then one must have it, in spite of how one feels. 137 The manifestations of the

Spirit,

the evidence of the

baptism

in the

Spirit,

will follow.

This new element in the

pattern brought

a real

change.

For

Torrey,

the baptism

with the

Spirit

was not an

experience

of a divine

gift

received by waiting

in God’s

presence.

It was a divinely offered

gift

which could be

humanly appropriated,

and one need not

tarry.

The

baptism

in the Spirit

was not an

experience,

it was an event of faith

(with varying experience-aspects).

Morgan,

Mahan, Finney,

and

Moody

had identified the

Spirit baptism with an

experience.

For

Morgan

and Mahan it had been an illumination and a sense of

sonship

which resulted in a new

dynamic

to witness effectively.

For

Finney

it was

over-flowing love,

and for

Moody, great joy

marked the moment when

power

entered his life. Their

experience

was for them evidence that

they

had received the

baptism

in the

Spirit. Mahan had warned that one should not hold a preconceived notion as to the manner of the

experience. 138

But clearly, it was an experience.

Torrey

did not

deny

the

reality

of these

experiences.

He knew that the Spirit baptism

is often

accompanied by

such emotions as love or

joy, but he believed that these

experiences-aspects

were incidental to receiv- ing

it.

They certainly

were not to be

sought

after. It

may

be that the Apostles

“had similar

experiences

to those of

Finney

and Jonathan Edwards and others,” but the

Holy Spirit kept

them from

being

recorded in order to avoid the

danger

that we

might

confuse the

Spirit baptism with the incidental

experience-aspects

of it.139 For it is not what one experiences (sees

or

feels),

but one’s act of faith which insures that one has the

baptism

in the

Spirit.

To be sure, there will be evidence that one

really

had

appropriated

it

by

faith. There will be a

subsequent manifestation of the

baptism

with the

Holy Spirit

“in the new

power

in service.”140 This

(not

a feeling) is the uniform evidence of the

Spirit baptism

recorded in Scripture. Thus,

Torrey

shifted the character of the

135See above, note 96.

136Tori.ey, The Baptism with the Iloly Spirit, 51. 137Toney, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 53. 138Mahan, The Baptism of the Iloly Spirit, 117. 139Torrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, 50. 140To,.l.ey, The Baptism with the I-loly Spirit, 50.

27

154

Spirit baptism

from an experience with results, to an event of faith, with following

manifestations of

power.

The

gifts

of the

Spirit

are the true evidence that one has indeed been

baptized

in the

Spirit.

One’s

feelings are incidental.

Summary

The elements of this distinctive

interpretation

of the

baptism

in the Spirit

which had

emerged prior

to the Pentecostal movement

may

now be

briefly

restated. It was

subsequent

to conversion and for all Chris- tians. It was a receiving of the

Spirit

and so was

accompanied by

a new awareness of the

Deity. Essentially,

it was not for sanctification. It endued the Christian with divine

power

which was manifest in effective witnessing, i.e.,

in the

converting

of sinners.

The assertion that this

experience, subsequent

to conversion, was a receiving

of the

Holy Spirit

was

undergirded by

the Acts’ accounts. Several

explanations

were advanced to indicate how and

why

the abid- ing Spirit, admittedly present

at conversion, could and should be received

yet

a second time. These fall into two

separate categories. Some affirmed that the

experience

was a change of the

Spirit’s

relation- ship

to the Christian

(from

“with” to

“in,”

or from “in” to

“upon”). Others declared that it was a change in the

degree

of His

presence

or power (from “having

Him” to having Him “in fullness” or “in

power”). The

problem question

for

Pentecostals,

“In what sense is the

Spirit Baptism receiving

the

Spirit?”

is

deeply

embedded in this distinctive interpretation (as

well as the

“unique

sanctification event”

interpretations to the extent that

they

rest on the Acts accounts of the

giving

of the Spirit).141

This

baptism

in the

Spirit

was to be received

by believing

the

promise, consecrating oneself,

and

praying

for the

good gift. Torrey

added that it must be appropriated by faith.

The

question,

“What is the evidence of the

Spirit baptism?”

did not become acute until

Torrey

introduced the idea of

appropriating

this promise by

faith. Prior to

that,

the term

“baptism

with the

Spirit”

stood for an

experience

which served as its own evidence

along

with the results of the

experience.

But with

Torrey,

the

gifts

of the

Spirit,

mani- fest

subsequent

to appropriating the

Spirit baptism,

assumed this

signif- icance

exclusively. Therefore,

one was

pressed

to look for them as the evidence that one indeed had

experienced

the faith to receive “the promise

of the Father”

(Acts 1:4).

141Roland Wessels, “How is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Distinguished from Receiving

the Spirit at Conversion? A Problem Question in the Asscmblies of God,” a

paper given

at the Twentieth Annual

Meeting

of the

William

Society

for Pentecostal Studies, Dallas, Texas, November 8-10, 1990.

G. MacDonald, “Pentecostal Theology,

A Classical Viewpoint,” Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, Russell P. Spittler, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 68-70.

28

155

The books and articles written on the

baptism

in the

Spirit

as an enduement with

power gave prominence

to manifestations of the

Spirit. Generally, they

evaluated

them, indicating

which were

probable (such as an illumination and

prophecy)

and which were

unlikely (such

as tongues

and

miracles)

as

aspects

of this

experience today. Torrey’s affirmation that the

sovereign Spirit might impart any

of the

gifts

of the Spirit subsequent

to the

Spirit baptism

went far to open the door to them all as both

possible

and valid in our time.

Some Observations

As we have

seen,

this

developed interpretation

of the

baptism

in the Spirit

was

quite

distinct in

meaning-content

from the

traditionally Methodist

conception

of the second

blessing,

even

though

called

by

the same name. In one, the believer was endued with

power

for service; in the other, the believer received entire sanctification

by

the eradication of the sin

principle

and the

filling

of the heart with love. An intermediate interpretation

called the

higher

Christian life contained elements of both. It stressed the weakness of human nature in

doing

God’s will. It con- ceived of an

experience

in which Christ was realized as present

within, giving power

for victorious

living.

As it occurred

through

the indwell- ing

of the

Holy Spirit,

this

experience

could also be called the

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit.

This form of

speaking

of a second

blessing,

in which one received

power

to live

victoriously,

served as the

bridge

to the con- ception

of the

baptism

in the

Spirit

as an enduement of

power

for service.

This last

understanding

of the

baptism

with the

Holy Spirit

had become such a distinctive

interpretation

of an

experience subsequent

to conversion,

it had become so unique, that those who embraced it toward the end of the nineteenth

century

did not see it as

simply

a variant of the other two

prevalent

views of a second

blessing. They

not

only

distin- guished

their view from these, but also showed that these other two interpretations,

as far as

they

were

valid, were,

in

fact, describing another Christian

experience.

And then

they

showed how the

Spirit baptism

was related to it. These

explanations

took two forms which were to become

particularly important

in the

history

of the Pentecostal movement.

Some

simply

added the

Spirit baptism

as a third

blessing

to the list of experiences

a believer could receive.

They regarded

the second

blessing, the sanctification

experience subsequent

to conversion, as the

prerequi- site for this third

blessing,

the

baptism

in the

Spirit.

An Australian Evangelist,

John

MacNeil,

took this

position

in his

book,

The

Spirit Filled

Life, published

in America in 1896.142 He said that the born- again

Christian

may

be

baptized

in the

Spirit,

as a distinct

experience subsequent

to conversion. To be born of the

Spirit

and to be filled with

142John MacNeil, The Spirit Filled Life (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1896).

29

156

the

Spirit

are distinct and

separate blessings.143

But,

in order to be so filled, one must

have ones heart cleansed. A Christian is

forgiven

his or her sins at conversion. But there is a crisis

experience subsequent

to this in which Christ comes into the life to cleanse it and to be the

power “by which the believer is

kept

from

defiling

his

garments by any

known sin.”144 This

cleansing

is the condition for

growth

in holiness and for the

baptism

in the

Spirit.

After

having

received this

experience,

the Christian, who then consecrates

himself or herself to God and claims the

promise

in

prayer through

faith,

receives the

baptism

in the Spirit.145

The

early

Pentecostal movement followed this line of thinking.

Others

explained

the nature of crisis

experiences, subsequent

to con- version, which result in higher levels of Christian living,

as acts of con- secration.

Therefore, they

should not be confused with the

divinely given baptism

in the

Spirit. Torrey

followed this

path.

He

rejected

the eradication view

(the

second work of

grace),

for he believed that

though the divine

nature, granted

in conversion, is the

dominating principle

in the Christian’s

life,

the convert retains the

fleshly nature, essentially

and inherently

bad as it is, until the second

coming

of Christ.146 However, there is an instantaneous

raising

of the level of Christian

living

when the Christian

entirely

dedicates the self to God. So far as one’s will is con- cerned,

it is

wholly

God’s. But as the Christian continues to

study Scripture

and

prays

for further illumination as to God’s will for one’s life,

he or she will discover

aspects

of behavior and

thought

which are displeasing

to God.

Victory

over this

newly-discovered

unclaimed terri- tory

can be instantaneous as well, as one looks to Jesus in

prayer,

and claims for one’s self the virtues and

strength

of our Lord. As love for God and

knowledge

of Christ increases, there will be a

continuing series of transformation in the dedicated Christian,

conforming

him or her to the

image

of our Lord.147 Thus, one attains

maturity.

These instantaneous

changes

form the

progressive

work of

sanctification, which continue

through

all of life.148

All that is

expected

of the Christian who seeks the

baptism

in the Spirit,

however, is

a full

consecration,

not a particular level of

maturity. There is no second work of

grace, divinely given,

for which the Christian must

wait,

before one

may

be

baptized

in the

Spirit.

In con- version, God granted

the Christian the

only

divine

prerequisite

for the baptism

in the

Spirit: “Separation

from sin and

separation

to God

pro-

.

143MacNeil, The Spirit Filled Life, 23.

144MacNeil, The Spirit Filled Life, 53, 67, 68.

145MacNeil, The Spirit Filled Life, 73, 81, 87.

146Reuben Archer

Torrey,

What the Bible Teaches (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1933), 333, 328.

147Toj.i.ey, What the Bible Teaches, 348.

148Torrey, What the Bible Teaches, 349.

30

157

vided for the Christian in Christ.”149 This is a finished work as far as the Christian’s

standing

is concerned.150 God set the Christian

apart

to serve.

Therefore,

he or she should receive the

baptism

in the

Spirit.

One need not

tarry

for an intermediate

experience.

The first

major

contro- versy

within the Pentecostal movement was

generated by

those who came to the

insight

that this second view was the true one.

They

broke the

previous unanimity

of

opinion

that the second work of

grace

was necessary

in order to be

baptized

in the

Spirit.

One Final Word

The Pentecostal Movement

began

with the

question: Might

there not be some

uniform, immediate,

outward evidence of this

Spirit baptism

so that there would be no doubt that one had it?

Morgan, Mahan,

and Torrey

had noted the connection between the

baptism

in the

Spirit

and tongues

in the Acts accounts. But the one additional

element,

the

exeget- ical

spark igniting

the

flame,

which was to initiate the Pentecostal move- ment,

was the deduction

by

Charles Parham and his students that the initial evidence of the

Spirit baptism

is

speaking

in

tongues.151

It removed the

uncertainty

of whether or not one had

really

been

baptized in the

Spirit.

But it also reintroduced the need for

“tarrying”

until one had received the

gift

of For this verification of the

Spirit bap- tism to become an experiential reality,

tongues.

it needed a worship context simi- lar to the

Kentucky

Revival and the

early camp meetings

which was conducive to “manifestations of the

Spirit,” including tongues.

That was the contribution of the of the Azusa Street Mission. 152

149Torrey, What the Bible Teaches, 344.

,

150Torrey, What the Bible Teaches, 347. 151

Charles F. Parham and Sarah E. Parham, Selected Sermons

of

the Late

Charles F. Parham and Sarah Parham (compiled by Robert L. Parham; Published

the

by °

– compiler, 1941 ), 76.

152Frank

Bartleman,

How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles: As it Was in the

Beginning (Los Angeles: By

the author, 1925).

31