The Baptism in the Spirit: Another Work of Grace?

Photo by Ray Bilcliff from Pexels

Even before I went to seminary, I had heard about the critique against the Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Spirit leveled by James D. G. Dunn, Frederick Bruner, and Gordon Fee (henceforth, the “DBF” position). Published in 1970, Dunn’s and Bruner’s criticisms sparked an entire generation of Pentecostal scholars who sought to formulate responses. Fee was part of that generation although he added his voice to Dunn’s and Bruner’s critique in the late 1980s. 

Subsequence and separability were central to the DBF critique. Subsequence refers to the claim that there are “works” of grace after or following the new birth. These works are distinct or distinguishable (separable) from the new birth. The DBF position denied both.

Something else happened in the 1970s. As Dunn’s and Bruner’s critiques started to impact Pentecostal scholarship, Pentecostals also deepened their theology in dialogue with Catholics and rediscovered their Wesleyan heritage through conversations with Methodists like Donald Dayton. These conversations helped Pentecostals understand that the issues of subsequence and separability were not simply “Pentecostal” issues. They were, in fact, issues related to the entire patristic and medieval inheritance. 

Dunn had already seen this quite clearly. He criticized what he called the Pentecostalist and the sacramentalist as committed to the same theology. If the one gift of the Spirit is fully given in the internal transformation of conversion, then there was no biblical ground for a further bestowal of the Spirit in confirmation or other sacraments. Dunn argued that internal conversion and external initiation in ritual (conversion-initiation) marked the full reception of the gift of the Spirit. 

The DBF position claimed that there was no additional gift of the Spirit after the new birth over against Wesleyan ideas of entire sanctification, Pentecostal views of baptism in the Spirit, and patristic and medieval views of the sacramental mediation of water baptism, confirmation, and holy orders. Instead, the DBF position claimed that there were ongoing experiences of the Spirit, but such experiences did not represent any further “work” or “gift” of the Spirit. 

The DBF position rightly understood that separability and subsequence were about more than Pentecostalism. The patristic and medieval, the Wesleyan, and the Pentecostal positions all entail subsequence and separability. The question at the heart of the debate was how to understand subsequence. Dunn, Bruner, and Fee failed to see that “subsequence” did not refer to the one gift of the Spirit but the various operations of the Spirit as they unfolded synergistically.

The Argument Against Separability and Subsequence

The DBF position has two important components to subsequence: 1) it refers to a further gift or work of the Spirit beyond conversion (the new birth); 2) it introduces a sequencing of grace into separate or distinguishable stages so that these stages are timed differently. For Fee and Dunn, the experience of power present in Pentecostal testimony is deeply biblical while the theological interpretation of this experience as a “work” or “gift” of the Spirit subsequent to and separate from conversion is not. Fee states, “In the course of articulating this experience biblically. . . [Pentecostals] felt a special urgency to press for all the aspects of the experience—not only the experience itself, but also especially its necessity as a work of grace subsequent to salvation.” All believers may have subsequent experiences of the Spirit, but such experiences should never be theologized into a framework of stages in receiving the gift of the Spirit.

This position confuses the one gift of the Spirit with the further reception of grace. Dunn asks, “Is Spirit-baptism something essentially different from becoming a Christian?” He then claims that there are not two gifts or comings of the Spirit but one gift of the Spirit in conversion. Dunn states, “I hope to show that for the writers of the NT the baptism in or gift of the Spirit was part of the event (or process) of becoming a Christian.” 

Fee makes a similar move. He states, “Nowhere does the New Testament say, ‘Get saved, and then be filled with the Spirit.’ To early believers, getting saved, which included repentance and forgiveness obviously, meant especially to be filled with the Spirit.” The DBF position claims only one reception of the gift of the Spirit, not two. 

Yet, Dunn and Fee also claim that there can be ongoing experiences of the Spirit. These experiences are subsequent to and separate from the new birth. How could it be otherwise given the clear witness of scripture and tradition? Fee even goes so far as to claim that second and third generation Christians must have not experienced the empowering presence of the Spirit and thus required additional experiences. For Fee, this set the stage for connecting the outpouring of the Spirit with water baptism, which further underscored the need for additional experiences of power. 

What remains problematic in the DBF position is the theological interpretation of subsequent and separate stages to the Christian life and the gradual dispensing of grace in relation to those stages. Quoting Ephesians 5:18 (“be filled with the Spirit”), Fee prefers to see the Christian life as unfolding through ongoing experiences that reinforce Spirit-fullness rather than contribute to it. In other words, it’s about continuing to be filled, not stages that fill. If Pentecostals are wrong, then so are patristic and medieval views of the sacraments and all Wesleyans.

One Gift, Distinct Operations, and Diverse Experiences

The DBF position highlights the problem of language. Pentecostals and Wesleyans in the holiness movement talked about receiving the Spirit in the new birth and then moving toward Spirit-fullness through a sanctifying journey. Picking up on the phrases “full of the Spirit” or “filled with the Spirit,” they synthesized the biblical witness by appealing to a spatial metaphor. The stages of the Christian life or the “works of grace” concerned moving from empty to full or from part to whole. This is the wrong way to describe the biblical witness.

The key to subsequence and separability is the language of grace in the New Testament. The work of John Barclay (Paul & the Gift) and James Harrison (Paul’s Language of Grace) has reinforced the patristic and medieval consensus that grace should be understood fundamentally in terms of a gift concretely bestowed. Paul developed his concept of grace in terms of the benefaction system of the Roman world in which a benefactor gave gifts to beneficiaries. Christ and the Spirit are the gifts that the Father lavishly poured out on an undeserving world. As the gift of God, grace refers to the deeper participation in the presence of God for us and in us and all the benefits that this participation brings.

If grace concerns the gift of divine presence, then one can see why Paul closely connects grace to the language of power and energy/operation. Paul prays that the Ephesians may know “the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power (dunamis) toward us who believe, according to the working (energeian) of His mighty power” (Eph. 1:18-19). The use of working/operation in relation to power demonstrates how Paul understood the presence of God within. As Fee concluded in his work on Paul’s view of the Spirit, the Spirit is God’s empowering presence who unites and conforms the believer to Christ since the Spirit takes the believer on a journey “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:8).  

Grace as an undeserved gift flows into the life of the believer over time through the working of divine power within. Believers can and should participate in God’s presence more deeply as they become more like God through growth in grace. As Basil of Caesarea states, the Spirit “is not participated in all at once but shares his operation (energeian) in ‘proportion to faith’ (Rom. 12:6). He is simple in substance, but manifold in powers (dunamesin).” While the one gift of the Spirit unites believers to the gift of Christ, this Spirit-infused union becomes the conduit for the outpouring of gifts as the believer cooperated with God’s power.

The consensus of patristic and medieval tradition was that there was one gift of the Spirit, but the one Spirit “worked” or “operated” in power to unite and conform the believer to Christ. What is subsequent is the various operations or workings of power within the believer, not the one gift of the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit makes possible the opening up of the believer to these various operations as they unfold. On the one hand, there are various operations of power. On the other hand, there is the believer’s cooperation through faith with these operations. Both are necessary.

The DBF position understood the operations of the Spirit in terms of spiritual experiences of power while the sacramental, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal position placed these operations into a framework of growth into the likeness of Christ. The language of “stages” or “works of grace” underscored distinct operations of the Spirit for different ends. Unfortunately, Pentecostals and Wesleyans have at times reduced the language of “works of grace” to dramatic events rather than deep operations of gracious power that induce moments of encounter. This power is nothing less than holy love at work within.

Sacraments, Means of Grace, and Stages

Even though Wesleyanism has a deep connection to patristic and medieval Christianity, the sacramental and the revivalist sides of the Wesleyan tradition remain divided. This division is partly due to the tension between theology and practice. Patristic and medieval theologians saw sacraments as places of encounter in which the power of God flowed into the life of the believer. In practice, this theology did not always mean that participation in the sacrament resulted in a conscious encounter with God. Receiving bread and wine sometimes became just eating and drinking, not encountering the risen Lord in the power of the Spirit (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

Within the Wesleyan tradition, there is a rich theology of sacraments. Water baptism concerns the regenerating operation of the Spirit rooted in the Spirit as Lord and Giver of life. The baptismal waters bring new life as the Spirit conforms the person to the new creation in Christ. The Eucharist concerns the sanctifying operation of the Spirit rooted in the Spirit as the holy one who shares his holiness within all that bears fruit and produces the character of Christ in all. The bread and the wine facilitate this new stage of Christian existence. Confirmation concerns the charismatic operation of the Spirit rooted in the Spirit as the shekinah or thick glory that descends upon all to anoint with new gifts in conformity to the mission of Christ. Anointing with oil facilitates this sacramental practice, which embodies a distinct operation of grace.

At the same time, many Wesleyans participated in these sacramental events and never experienced consciously the power of God. This is where the revivalist stream began to utilize the atmosphere of the revival to facilitate encounters with God. With its broader understanding, the Wesleyan commitment to various means of grace advanced the revivalist approach. Sacraments were simply part of a larger framework in which spiritual disciplines and missional practices all functioned to transmit God’s presence and power. The center was the community gathered in worship around the preaching of the Word and the conscious encounter with God at the mourner’s bench.

What unites the sacramental and revivalist sides is grace as the gift of Christ and the Spirit who transmit God’s presence and power. It is the presence and power of God that heals from sin and reforms the image of God. In the words of Andrae Crouch’s hymn, “the blood will never lose its power.” This happens in “stages” as grace comes through the various operations of the Spirit that conform the believer to Christ. Sacraments take on their full life within the atmosphere of revival as the power of God permeates the people of God. The fires of revival facilitate conscious participation in God’s presence and power.

The DBF position represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the way patristic and medieval Christians, Wesleyans, and Pentecostals understood scripture. Rather than a framework of “stages” to the Christian life, Dunn, Bruner, and Fee argued for a divine download of the entire work of the Spirit along with the gift of the Spirit at conversion. They also postulated ongoing spiritual experiences as how the work of the Spirit was continually renewed. 

The language of subsequence and separability places the operations of the Spirit within a transformational journey of becoming like Christ through “stages” of growth facilitated by encounters with God. Dunn, Bruner, and Fee recognized distinctions between justifying, sanctifying, and charismatic dimensions of the power of the Spirit and yet they refused to see these as distinct operations subsequent to one another. This is precisely where they get it wrong and Christian tradition gets it right. It also means that the Pentecostal view of baptism in the Spirit as a distinct operation of the Spirit stands within Christian tradition, not outside of it.