# Second work of Grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit



## hollandmin

Hey all,

I'm looking for some good MP3s on the heresy of the second work of grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal position.

I have a friend and his wife who attend a Church Of God (Cleveland) congregation and are having some major issues with this doctrine (among) other things. I have been ministering to them concerning these issues, but I thought if they had something that they could listen to while driving it would be helpful (they travel a lot). 

My hope is that they will eventually leave and come to my congregation but I don't want to do anything premature.

Any help would be appreciated.

Blessings,


----------



## mvdm

Contact Mid America Reformed Seminary. Dr. Cornel Venema has been giving 4 lecture sessions this April on the topic of pentecostalism, the gifts of the spirits, explaining the cessationist position, the second baptism of the spirit, etc. The last one is tonight, which I will be attending as well. I believe these lectures are made available to the general public, but not sure if it is in mp3 or CD Rom format.


----------



## KMK

hollandmin said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I'm looking for some good MP3s on the heresy of the second work of grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal position.



Is Baptism of the Holy Spirit heresy?


----------



## DMcFadden

KMK said:


> hollandmin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I'm looking for some good MP3s on the heresy of the second work of grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism of the Holy Spirit heresy?
Click to expand...


It is, in my opinion, an erroneous coding of a spiritual experience. Judged biblically, I cannot find any way to justify the language to explain the experience under consideration. Wrong, harmful, erroneous. I'll leave the parsing of heresy, heterodoxy, unorthodxy, etc. to others.


----------



## Pilgrim

KMK said:


> hollandmin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I'm looking for some good MP3s on the heresy of the second work of grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism of the Holy Spirit heresy?
Click to expand...


What he appears to have in view is the Pentecostal teaching that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs subsequent to conversion and is accompanied by visible sign gifts like speaking in other tongues, etc.


----------



## Stephen

KMK said:


> hollandmin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I'm looking for some good MP3s on the heresy of the second work of grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism of the Holy Spirit heresy?
Click to expand...




I am not sure I would classify it as heresy, but it is a position that is outside the confessional standards. There are doctrines and practices associated with it that are heretical.


----------



## hollandmin

Pilgrim said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollandmin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I'm looking for some good MP3s on the heresy of the second work of grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism of the Holy Spirit heresy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What he appears to have in view is the Pentecostal teaching that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs subsequent to conversion and is accompanied by visible sign gifts like speaking in other tongues, etc.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I'm saying



> It is, in my opinion, an erroneous coding of a spiritual experience. Judged biblically, I cannot find any way to justify the language to explain the experience under consideration. Wrong, harmful, erroneous. I'll leave the parsing of heresy, heterodoxy, unorthodxy, etc. to others.



Brother, If you have taken any time to see what this position has done to numerous people your stance would probably be a little different. I have had the unfortunate pleassure of dealing with this on numerous occations and seen the devistation of those who just couldn''t be "baptised in the holy spirit" from this Pentecostal point of view. People who feel that they just arn't loved by God and feel as though they're are 2nd class Christians. 

If you hold to a second level of Chrisitianity (in this case, the pentecostal believe of "baptism of the Holy Spirit" which takes place post conversion and speaking in tongues is proof of this) I would call this a Heresy (def. any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position). If you would like, I suppose we could call it heterodoxy, if heresy is too stong of a word.

Blessings,


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> hollandmin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I'm looking for some good MP3s on the heresy of the second work of grace / Baptism of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism of the Holy Spirit heresy?
Click to expand...


Ken, I believe it _leads_ to heresy. At minimum it is a misguided and incorrect interpretation of scripture. When it jumps to, "if you don't speak in tongues you're not saved" it is full blown heresy. What it does set up is a caste system within the church. Those who have the baptism of the Spirit, and it's associated gifts, are tempted to believe they have something that others don't. That is why the term "Full Gospel" makes me angry.


----------



## HaigLaw

mvdm said:


> Contact Mid America Reformed Seminary. Dr. Cornel Venema has been giving 4 lecture sessions this April on the topic of pentecostalism, the gifts of the spirits, explaining the cessationist position, the second baptism of the spirit, etc. The last one is tonight, which I will be attending as well. I believe these lectures are made available to the general public, but not sure if it is in mp3 or CD Rom format.



There is nothing in the WCOF denigrating speaking in tongues. The closest thing is in the worship section saying all prayer uttered in a worship service must be in a known tongue. If there were, it would violate Paul's injunction not to prohibit speaking in tongues.

All the cessationist arguments I have studied have been found wanting. The strongest one, which I used to accept, is that tongues presume to be new revelation, and thus violate a closed canon, until a friend pointed out to me that none of the instances of tongues recorded in the Bible contained any revelatory material.


----------



## Stephen

HaigLaw said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contact Mid America Reformed Seminary. Dr. Cornel Venema has been giving 4 lecture sessions this April on the topic of pentecostalism, the gifts of the spirits, explaining the cessationist position, the second baptism of the spirit, etc. The last one is tonight, which I will be attending as well. I believe these lectures are made available to the general public, but not sure if it is in mp3 or CD Rom format.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the WCOF denigrating speaking in tongues. The closest thing is in the worship section saying all prayer uttered in a worship service must be in a known tongue. If there were, it would violate Paul's injunction not to prohibit speaking in tongues.
> 
> All the cessationist arguments I have studied have been found wanting. The strongest one, which I used to accept, is that tongues presume to be new revelation, and thus violate a closed canon, until a friend pointed out to me that none of the instances of tongues recorded in the Bible contained any revelatory material.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but your friend is mistaken. I would research the matter yourself before listening to what someone told you. Tongues, healing, and prophecy were always connected with revelation. Your position is outside of Reformed orthodoxy. The classical position that Reformed people affirm is upheld by Hodge, Warfield, and many of the great systematicians. The book entitiled, *Whatever Happened to The Reformation *by Johnson and White shows the classic position. Edward Irving, who introduced much of the modern tongues and prophecy movement, was removed from the ministry in the Presbyterian Church in the middle 1800's for this position.


----------



## Craig

hollandmin said:


> Brother, If you have taken any time to see what this position has done to numerous people your stance would probably be a little different. I have had the unfortunate pleassure of dealing with this on numerous occations and seen the devistation of those who just couldn''t be "baptised in the holy spirit" from this Pentecostal point of view. People who feel that they just arn't loved by God and feel as though they're are 2nd class Christians.



Exactly. What's devastating isn't so much the charasmatic doctrine of tongues...it's the class-system the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit creates (as if the baptism of the Holy Spirit doesn't occur at conversion).

I grew up in Wesleyan Holiness (entire sanctification/perfectionsim)...that taught a subsequent baptism...hence I gravitated toward Charasmatic Christianity post-conversion.

I'll tell you from experience: 
It makes salvation about works. It's a theology of despair. People are constantly evaluating if they've have dealt with their sin enough to get this special baptism. I remember begging God day after day for it...I remember doing this to the point of tears. 

Rather than this doctrinal innovation contributing to sanctification, it gives rise to others lording over the 2nd class Christian.

I wish I had something I could refer you to, Rev Holland...for me, the doctrine lost it's grip after my understanding of God's sovereignty grew more and more.


----------



## FenderPriest

You (hollandmin) might want to consult Grudem's Systematic Theology for some help on this issue. He's not a cessationist, but he's also not very happy with a lot of Pentecostal terminology. I think he holds a balanced view on the subject - but even if one disagrees, which I realize will be many, I think it will help to see a well thought out position on the issue.


----------



## KMK

Stephen said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contact Mid America Reformed Seminary. Dr. Cornel Venema has been giving 4 lecture sessions this April on the topic of pentecostalism, the gifts of the spirits, explaining the cessationist position, the second baptism of the spirit, etc. The last one is tonight, which I will be attending as well. I believe these lectures are made available to the general public, but not sure if it is in mp3 or CD Rom format.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the WCOF denigrating speaking in tongues. The closest thing is in the worship section saying all prayer uttered in a worship service must be in a known tongue. If there were, it would violate Paul's injunction not to prohibit speaking in tongues.
> 
> All the cessationist arguments I have studied have been found wanting. The strongest one, which I used to accept, is that tongues presume to be new revelation, and thus violate a closed canon, until a friend pointed out to me that none of the instances of tongues recorded in the Bible contained any revelatory material.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your friend is mistaken. I would research the matter yourself before listening to what someone told you. Tongues, healing, and prophecy were always connected with revelation. Your position is outside of Reformed orthodoxy. The classical position that Reformed people affirm is upheld by Hodge, Warfield, and many of the great systematicians. The book entitiled, *Whatever Happened to The Reformation *by Johnson and White shows the classic position. Edward Irving, who introduced much of the modern tongues and prophecy movement, was removed from the ministry in the Presbyterian Church in the middle 1800's for this position.
Click to expand...


Can you be more specific? Exactly what is Mr. Haigler's position that is outside Reformed orthodoxy? The fact that 'tongues, healing, and prophecy are always connected with revelation'? If so, how can 'healing' be connected with prophecy?


----------



## wsw201

Healing is connected to prophecy as they are both sign gifts. I would recommend O. Palmer Robertson book The Final Word. It is one of the better books that I have read regarding the link between tongues and prophecy.

BTW, regarding healing, I'm not talking about someone praying for someone else and God in His providence heals them, but when someone is healed by a touch, or casting a shadow as the Apostles did.

I would also agree with Craig. This second baptism garbage can de devistating. The parallels to Gnosticism cannot be ignored.


----------



## HaigLaw

Stephen said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the WCOF denigrating speaking in tongues. The closest thing is in the worship section saying all prayer uttered in a worship service must be in a known tongue. If there were, it would violate Paul's injunction not to prohibit speaking in tongues.
> 
> All the cessationist arguments I have studied have been found wanting. The strongest one, which I used to accept, is that tongues presume to be new revelation, and thus violate a closed canon, until a friend pointed out to me that none of the instances of tongues recorded in the Bible contained any revelatory material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your friend is mistaken. I would research the matter yourself before listening to what someone told you. Tongues, healing, and prophecy were always connected with revelation. Your position is outside of Reformed orthodoxy. The classical position that Reformed people affirm is upheld by Hodge, Warfield, and many of the great systematicians. The book entitiled, *Whatever Happened to The Reformation *by Johnson and White shows the classic position. Edward Irving, who introduced much of the modern tongues and prophecy movement, was removed from the ministry in the Presbyterian Church in the middle 1800's for this position.
Click to expand...


I would have to question this as Pastor KMK has above. The inference that I have not studied this myself is unfounded in what I said. I'm a sola scriptura man. Show me from Scripture that tongues have ceased. Or show me from the Westminster Standards that I am "outside of Reformed orthodoxy."

All of the cessationist arguments I've read reason from excesses, not from Scripture or the standards.


----------



## KMK

HaigLaw said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the WCOF denigrating speaking in tongues. The closest thing is in the worship section saying all prayer uttered in a worship service must be in a known tongue. If there were, it would violate Paul's injunction not to prohibit speaking in tongues.
> 
> All the cessationist arguments I have studied have been found wanting. The strongest one, which I used to accept, is that tongues presume to be new revelation, and thus violate a closed canon, until a friend pointed out to me that none of the instances of tongues recorded in the Bible contained any revelatory material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your friend is mistaken. I would research the matter yourself before listening to what someone told you. Tongues, healing, and prophecy were always connected with revelation. Your position is outside of Reformed orthodoxy. The classical position that Reformed people affirm is upheld by Hodge, Warfield, and many of the great systematicians. The book entitiled, *Whatever Happened to The Reformation *by Johnson and White shows the classic position. Edward Irving, who introduced much of the modern tongues and prophecy movement, was removed from the ministry in the Presbyterian Church in the middle 1800's for this position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have to question this as Pastor KMK has above. The inference that I have not studied this myself is unfounded in what I said. I'm a sola scriptura man. Show me from Scripture that tongues have ceased. Or show me from the Westminster Standards that I am "outside of Reformed orthodoxy."
> 
> All of the cessationist arguments I've read reason from excesses, not from Scripture or the standards.
Click to expand...


These are some interesting threads that interact with charismata and the WCF:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/rutherford-gift-prophecy-wcf-27106/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/cessationist-no-why-2-a-525/


----------



## Pilgrim

Moderation: 

What is being discussed in the o.p. isn't cessationism necessarily. Many non-cessationists reject as unorthodox the classic pentecostal teaching of a baptism of the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion and the idea that those who don't receive it as being at best second class Christians. Let's get back on topic. Those who want to discuss cessationism more generally are welcome to open a new thread.


----------



## HaigLaw

Pilgrim said:


> Moderation:
> 
> What is being discussed in the o.p. isn't cessationism necessarily. Many non-cessationists reject as unorthodox the classic pentecostal teaching of a baptism of the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion and the idea that those who don't receive it as being at best second class Christians. Let's get back on topic. Those who want to discuss cessationism more generally are welcome to open a new thread.



I reject "the classic pentecostal teaching of a baptism of the Holy Spirit [necessarily] subsequent to conversion and the idea that those who don't receive it as being at best second class Christians."

I have never been comfortable with the expression "baptism of the Holy Spirit" as something other than or in addition to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon conversion or with the idea that speaking in tongues is something every Christian must have.

I do think it is something that Christians today may have, and I find nothing in the Scriptures or confessional standards saying otherwise.


----------

