Theology Response (Jacob Gulka)

1. What do you think was Bird’s strongest point in his explanation of “baptism in the Spirit”? What was Anderson’s strongest point?


Bird gave a strong description that the filling with the spirit as a repeatable event in the believers life as opposed to the baptism in the spirit as unrepeatable.  He cited a plethora of scriptures discussing from Old to New Testament how filling occurred for believers to do a specifically important task (e.g. witnessing, miracles, etc.), whereas Holy Spirit Baptism is the initial moment when the Holy Spirit rushes through a person at their conversion.  He discussed that concerning the disciples of John the Baptist receiving the Spirit that it occurred upon the conversion (Acts 19:2).  
Anderson’s gave the point that the Baptism in the Spirit was not to occur until Jesus was glorified (John 7:39).   He posed that Christ would not baptize them until He had ascended to heaven.  The apostles received the Spirit in John 20:22 whereas they were baptized in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 1:8 ).  Therefore the two events of receiving the Spirit and Baptism in the Spirit are separate.  

2. What have been the blessings and the drawbacks of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement?

Personally, the Pentecostal movement, particularly in the Assemblies of God and Chi Alpha, has blessed by emphasizing the dynamics of the Spirit-filled life.  I was challenged in many cases to rely on the Holy Spirit as a person and to live as full of the Spirit as Jesus did.      
Holy Spirit baptism dramatically affected my life since I desired the life of empowerment, particularly in my witness.  As opposed to relying on my intellectual Christianity I was humbled with the initial physical evidence of tongues.  I wanted the baptism on my terms and not on what I thought of as foolish “flaky” terms (which turned out to be God’s).  With such an emphasis on sanctification and witness I was challenged to lively fully for Christ and not for myself.    
However, what I have noticed in the Pentecostal movement is its potential divisiveness among other denominations.  With their specific doctrinal outlines of the nature of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, I’ve seen believers turned-off by this annunciation.  With the incredibly impactful ministries involving Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, Spurgeon, etc. who likely believe that Holy Spirit Baptism occurs at conversion without needing the presence of tongues, by certain Pentecostal doctrine many would consider these people to not have this baptism.  So why have their ministries been that powerful?  I believe poor discussion of this doctrine provides a stumbling block for non-Pentecostals/charismatics.  
I believe there is more discussion needed interdenominationally about this topic since it applies to the witness of the church.  I personally believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit as the “second work” and that we Pentecostals need to reflect on its implications more regarding the unity of the global church, and discuss why alternative views exist. This would help with misunderstandings towards Pentecostals and vice-versa.

Jacob Gulka wrote:1. What do you think was Bird’s strongest point in his explanation of “baptism in the Spirit”? What was Anderson’s strongest point?


Bird gave a strong description that the filling with the spirit as a repeatable event in the believers life as opposed to the baptism in the spirit as unrepeatable.  He cited a plethora of scriptures discussing from Old to New Testament how filling occurred for believers to do a specifically important task (e.g. witnessing, miracles, etc.), whereas Holy Spirit Baptism is the initial moment when the Holy Spirit rushes through a person at their conversion.  He discussed that concerning the disciples of John the Baptist receiving the Spirit that it occurred upon the conversion (Acts 19:2).  
Anderson’s gave the point that the Baptism in the Spirit was not to occur until Jesus was glorified (John 7:39).   He posed that Christ would not baptize them until He had ascended to heaven.  The apostles received the Spirit in John 20:22 whereas they were baptized in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 1:8 ).  Therefore the two events of receiving the Spirit and Baptism in the Spirit are separate.  

2. What have been the blessings and the drawbacks of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement?

Personally, the Pentecostal movement, particularly in the Assemblies of God and Chi Alpha, has blessed by emphasizing the dynamics of the Spirit-filled life.  I was challenged in many cases to rely on the Holy Spirit as a person and to live as full of the Spirit as Jesus did.      
Holy Spirit baptism dramatically affected my life since I desired the life of empowerment, particularly in my witness.  As opposed to relying on my intellectual Christianity I was humbled with the initial physical evidence of tongues.  I wanted the baptism on my terms and not on what I thought of as foolish “flaky” terms (which turned out to be God’s).  With such an emphasis on sanctification and witness I was challenged to lively fully for Christ and not for myself.    
However, what I have noticed in the Pentecostal movement is its potential divisiveness among other denominations.  With their specific doctrinal outlines of the nature of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, I’ve seen believers turned-off by this annunciation.  With the incredibly impactful ministries involving Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, Spurgeon, etc. who likely believe that Holy Spirit Baptism occurs at conversion without needing the presence of tongues, by certain Pentecostal doctrine many would consider these people to not have this baptism.  So why have their ministries been that powerful?  I believe poor discussion of this doctrine provides a stumbling block for non-Pentecostals/charismatics.  
I believe there is more discussion needed interdenominationally about this topic since it applies to the witness of the church.  I personally believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit as the “second work” and that we Pentecostals need to reflect on its implications more regarding the unity of the global church, and discuss why alternative views exist.  This would help with misunderstandings towards Pentecostals and vice-versa.  

I think this is a great response. I like your judgement of Bird's work, analyzing that the filling of the Holy Spirit is a repeatable work, whereas the Baptism is one-time event. That was a very interesting take on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and contrary to my upbringing. I was taught that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Spirit were the same event, but we could be "refilled" multiple times. This wasn't meant to say that we lost the Baptism, but we simply needed more of the Spirit in our lives.

I find it incredible that you were humbled by speaking in tongues. For me, tongues has never been a humbling experience. I have often struggled with spiritual pride, and so I was proud that I spoke in tongues, and put people down for not speaking in tongues. It also seemed such an easy thing for me growing up, to the effect that the Baptism was easy because you had to do was to get someone to speak in tongues. Your reflection is incredible for me to read.

I also fully agree with the interdenominational discussion about the Baptism of the Spirit.