Path: christian
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
From: dowling@oasys.dt.navy.mil (John Dowling)
Subject: Speaking in tongues and redemption
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Reply-To: dowling@oasys.dt.navy.mil (John Dowling)
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

I'd like to throw this topic out to the "net" at large to see what discussion
developes.  My wife is a member of a Pentecostal (Holiness) church where
the doctrine states that in order to be "saved", a person must be baptized
in the NAME of Jesus Christ (Father, SON, and Holy Ghost won't suffice)
and they must receive the Holy Ghost.  The evidence of having received
the Holy Ghost is the ability to speak in tongues (based on Acts 2:4).

I'd like to know anyone's opinion on this doctrine.  Does baptism have
to be in the specific name of Jesus Christ to be valid?  Is speaking
in tongues a requirement of having received the Holy Spirit?  I find
the doctrine somewhat legalistic but I'm trying to be open-minded.
Any opinions would be welcomed.

[You've wandered into an area full of arguments.  I'm not from the
Pentecostal tradition myself, so I can only give you a summary of what
I've read.  And that comes from accounts of a confusing variety of
different groups and beliefs.  This is primarily from a set of
articles in the Dictionary of Christianity in America.

First, let's start with the NT evidence.  You might want to look at I
Cor 12 - 14 for Paul's discussion on different gifts.  This contains
his discussion of tongues, as well as other gifts of the Spirit.  Acts
2, 9, 10, and 19 are also cited as showing the gifts of the spirit
(particularly tongues) and baptism.  My own reading of these passages
is that the NT says that all Christians are indwelt by the Holy
Spirit.  I see this in Jesus' promise of the Paraclete in the High
Priestly Prayer, innumerable passages in Paul talking about the
presence of the Holy Sprit (to choose a random example, 1 Cor 6:19),
and the accounts in Acts.  A typical passage in Acts is Acts 2:38,
which says that you are expected to repent, be baptized in the name of
Jesus, and receive the Holy Spirit.

The issues regarding Pentecostalism are:
  - Spirit baptism as a second (or third) work
  - whether tongues invariably accompanies the Holy Spirit
  - baptism in the name of Jesus alone, and the Trinity

Pentecostalism is based on the Holiness movement, which is itself an
offshoot of Methodism, sort of.  John Wesley (founder of the
Methodists) taught "entire sanctification", the idea that it was
possible to be completely purged of sin.  In the Holiness movement (as
with Wesley) this was regarded as something that occurs after
salvation.  It was sometimes called a "second blessing", and sometimes
described as a "baptism of the Holy Spirit".  It was sometimes, but
not always, accompanied by speaking in tongues.  There was a Reformed
version of this, not described in terms of "perfectionism", but with
similar goals.  It's referred to as "Higher Christian Life".  The
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is either associated with this second
blessing or subsequent to it (for the Holiness Pentecostals).

The Pentecostal movement originated within this Holiness tradition.
It came out of the experience of personal salvation by a number of
people.  You can think of it as a revival movement.  While it differed
from the broader Holiness movement in feeling that tongues was an
invariable accompaniment of baptism in the Holy Spirit (but see
below), this was not its only characteristic.  It was seen as a a
spiritual renewal, in preparation for the Second Coming.

Traditionally, Pentecostals speak in tongues.  Many groups, e.g.  the
Assemblies of God (the largest Pentecostal group, with 2 M members)
believe it is always present as a sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit.
However some groups (particularly the more moderate "charismatic"
groups within the more traditional churches) accept any of the gifts of
the Spirit listed by Paul in 1 Cor.

There have been a number of disagreements among Pentecostals.  Major
ones involve whether santification is progressive or must happen all
at once, and the debate over baptism in the name of Jesus.  The
controversy over Baptism is fairly recent, having been started in
1913.  Apparently the folks who started it rejected the Trinity.  The
Assemblies of God believe in the Trinity and use the three-fold
baptism.  The United Pentecostal Church International (500 K members)
broke from it, based on this issue among others.  It baptizes only in
the name of Jesus, and rejects the Trinity, saying that there is only
one Person in the Godhead, Jesus Christ.  There may be groups that
baptize only in the name of Jesus and believe in the Trinity, but at
least in the Pentecostal tradition these beliefs seem to be linked.

The Scriptural evidence on baptism is Mat 28:19, which calls for
baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and
Acts, which refers to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38,
8:16, 10:48, 19:5).  Most Christians assume that Acts reference to
baptism "in the name of Jesus" is not giving the actual baptismal
formula, but simply contrasting Christian baptism with the baptism of
John or Jewish practice.  Those who baptize in the name of Jesus only
explain Mat 28:19 by saying that it refers to in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ *is* the name
of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  I'm not sure that either
of these explanations is entirely convincing, but this analysis of Mat
28:19 seems among the more bizarre Biblical interpretations I've run
into.  It is certainly possible that the early church used more than
one baptismal formula.  Since the doctrine of the Trinity didn't yet
exist, a difference in formula probably wouldn't have had any
doctrinal implications.

To return to your wife's situation: it's unusual to say that you must
speak in tongues in order to be saved.  The typical Pentecostal belief
(and I'd think this would certainly be true for any that identifies
itself as Holiness) is that this is part of a second baptism,
subsequent to conversion.  It appears that the oneness Pentecostals
(those that baptize only in the name of Jesus) are in the minority,
but that this view is not uncommon.

I would suggest that you try to avoid confusing the baptismal formula
with the underlying doctrinal issue.  That is, arguing over whether to
follow Matthew or Acts is probably useless if the real issue is the
Trinity.  Since neither Matthew nor Luke had heard of the Trinity,
arguments about those passages are probably not the most useful way to
decide on the appropriateness of the Trinity.

On the other hand, the church has generally accepted the triple
formula.  It's just about the only thing that the whole Church agrees
on.  (I believe even LDS and JW's use it.)  I personally think that
either of the formulae suggested in the NT would be intrinsically OK.
However as I value the idea of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph
4:5), I suggest that we should use the common formula unless there are
good reasons to the contrary.  Even non-Trinitarians have often found
the triple baptismal formula acceptable.  The Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are all important to the NT concept of God, whether you accept
them as persons in the Trinity or not.  Thus it's hard for me to see
any good reason to reject the triple formula.  Certainly it breaks
what little unity is left in the Church.  A number of churches would
not recognize baptism unless it is done in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I should warn you however that I probably disagree with most of the
positions of your wife's church:

  - I believe that NT portrays the presence of the Holy Spirit as
	essential to the Christian life, and not a "second blessing"
  - I see no NT evidence for a second baptism (except for Act 8:16,
	which seems to suggest that an error had occurred -- someone
	had been baptized, but had not received the Holy Spirit.
	One possibility is that baptism was normally accompanied by the
	laying on of hands, and that had been omitted.  Another
	is that this was a new Christian community, and that 
	the Jerusalem apostles believed they needed to transmit
	the Holy Spirit to each new community.)
  - I see no evidence to give tongues any priority over any of the
	other gifts that the Holy Spirit gives, and in fact Paul
	seems to be trying to deemphasize tongues
  - I'm inclined to think that Christians grow in sanctification
	over the course of their Christian walk, but never reach
	"entire sanctification".  I'm not sure Wesley would be
	pleased by the way his idea was being used.  He presented
	Christian perfection as a possibility, but he never claimed
	to have reached it himself, and I'm not sure he would have
	approved of the way it came to be used in the Holiness
	tradition.

Thus someone else will have to present arguments for the specific
beliefs.  I'm writing this primarily to give you the broader
background for these beliefs.

--clh]