There are three major areas of controversy among Christians pertaining to the “new birth.” They are: 1) What is the nature of and relationship between the “new birth” and Spirit-baptism? Are they the same thing or two different occasions of Spirit-reception?; 2) If they are separate, how are they separate and how do they relate to each other?; 3) Is there any particular, palpable and Biblical evidence that acts as proof that one is “born again”? Many Oneness adherents would say it is speaking in tongues as in Pentecostal Spirit-baptism. If Pentecostal Spirit-baptism is the “new birth,” as the United Pentecostal Church teaches, then does that mean the Pentecostal belief in evidential tongues can be Biblically equated with a belief that tongues are also the evidence that one is in the same instance “born again”? 

          Historically, many traditions or leaders equated the Biblical concept of “new birth” found in John 3:5 with the experience of Spirit-baptism as found in the Book of Acts. This seems to be the position of the large majority of Christians in the Protestant ranks. On the other hand, others, which are largely Wesleyan, Holiness, Keswick or Pentecostal believers, teach that the “new birth” is part of conversion, while Spirit-baptism is a separate and subsequent work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. Which one is correct? A a proper Biblical understanding of the nature of Spirit-baptism is necessary in order to determine the answer to this question. 

          For our purposes, there are two prominent positions or controversies surrounding this question, and they are fiercely debated and defended by their advocates. These are: 1). The “separability” of Spirit-baptism from conversion (regeneration and justification), and 2) the “evidential value” of speaking with tongues for Spirit-baptism. 

These two beliefs – “separability” and “evidential value” of speaking in tongues – are the two distinctive tenets of classical Pentecostalism.¹ 

Gordon Fee lists two Pentecostal distinctives:  

(1) the doctrine of subsequence, i. e., that there is for Christians a baptism in the Spirit distinct from and subsequent to the experience of salvation .... and (2) the doctrine of tongues as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Spirit."²

          I believe that Frederick Dale Bruner is one of the keenest critics of Pentecostal theology. His work still stands in large part without an adequate theological and Biblical answer from Pentecostals or Charismatics. He summarizes the positions in this way: 

The most important characteristics of the Pentecostal understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit . . . are: (1) that the event is usually "distinct from and subsequent to" the new birth; (2) that it is evidenced initially by the sign of speaking in other tongues; (3) that it must be "earnestly" sought.³ 

          Excluding Bruner’s third point until much later, we will now look at the issue of subsequence and initial evidence. 

          The first issue, is the debate between the “synchronists,” and the “subsequentialists.” The “synchronists” believe that the Baptism of the Spirit occurs at the same time (coincident or simultaneous with) one is Born of the Spirit. The “subsequentialists,” (to follow in order; to come after) hold to the view that the Baptism of the Spirit takes place after or subsequent to the Birth of the Spirit or the New Birth. This is the position of the Assemblies of God, and other sister Pentecostal groups, which is expressed in their articles of faith: 

All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. . . . This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9). . . .⁴ 

          The synchronist’s position is that Spirit-baptism is coincident with conversion. That is, they are synchronic (syn + chronos = with in time) or simultaneous. A better way to express it is that there is no separation between conversion and Spirit-baptism. Classically, the chief work of grace (“first work” in Wesleyan theology) was justification by faith. Surrounding this were the various elements of conversion, such as regeneration, repentance, forgiveness, adoption, and sanctification. The order of these elements is considered more logical than chronological. That is, with respect to time, one is adopted at the exact same time as one is justified, but logically justification comes first because, from God’s perspective, adoption is based upon one’s justification. I speak in terms of an order, not to separate these elements, but to distinguish the relationship between them. All of these theological terms are ways we describe what Christ did for us through His work of salvation. They are the sole work of the Holy Spirit applying the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to the believer.  

          For the synchronist, sanctification is not a second work of grace. Rather, having begun in conversion, as a result of justification, it continues as the outworking of justification in the believer’s life. Sanctification is concurrent with and attendant to justification and not merely subsequent. Where justification is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer to bring one back into right relation to God, sanctification is the believer becoming righteous through the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification occurs as a result of one’s faith in Christ, and not by an act of faith separate from and subsequent to justification. 

          On the other hand, the subsequentialist believes that one receives the Holy Spirit in conversion, but is not baptized with the Spirit until a moment subsequent to conversion, and that, by a separate, distinct act of faith: 

In the Pentecostal view, when the full experience of the Spirit is not perceptibly subsequent it must at least be separate, discrete, or distinguishable from the experience of new birth.⁵ 

          Subsequentialists see two pronounced and distinct receptions of the Spirit in the life of the believer: 

Pentecostals believe that the Spirit has baptized every believer into Christ (conversion), but that Christ has not baptized every believer into the Spirit (Pentecost).⁶ 

          Not only are these differentiated, but many who hold to subsequence teaching believe that the second reception of the Spirit - the “Baptism with the Spirit” - is greater than the reception of the Spirit in conversion. Additionally, the possessor obtains a higher degree of spirituality. We will answer the last two assertions and many other related questions later in the chapters dealing with “Questions Concerning the Pentecostal View of ‘Baptism with the Spirit.’” First, let us look at the issue of initial evidence. 

          The second debate, concerning the Baptism of the Spirit, also has two generally opposing views. The first is the “evidentialist” view, which believes that there is one unique initial evidence of Spirit-baptism. Among Pentecostals, that evidence is almost universally speaking with other tongues. This position is best illustrated by the doctrinal statement of the Assemblies of God: 

The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4). The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:4-10, 28), but different in purpose and use.⁷ 

          For Charismatics, who hold to an initial evidence concept, other gift-signs than tongues are acceptable as initial evidence. The second, the “non-evidentialist,” believes that there is no one specific sign or “evidence” necessary to prove that one is baptized with the Spirit, beyond the believer’s faith in Christ. 

          Before the phenomenon of tongues was popularized by Pentecostals as the evidence of Spirit-baptism, other groups looked elsewhere for proof. Holiness and Keswick advocates believed that a distinct and conscious spiritual experience accompanied Spirit-baptism. Because it was believed to occur at conversion most reformed Christians did not look for evidence beyond those normally expected at conversion, such as a changed heart and life toward God. For revivalists it would be a dramatic, instantaneous experience. Others, it would be the gradual manifestation of the fruits and gifts of the Spirit. 

          In following chapters we will look at an historical survey of how movements and denominations have viewed Spirit-baptism. After this investigation, sections will be devoted to an examination of the central biblical issues of both subsequence and initial evidence. 

Historical Answers to Subsequence and Evidence 

          The following brief and limited survey of Church history is to acquaint us with the various answers or doctrinal and practical positions that groups of Christians have offered concerning subsequence and initial evidence. The views given are not to prove that one group is right or wrong, as much as to see how they relate, shape and provide a catalyst to the others. Most Christians are inadequately aware of this history and really need to know it to understand from where their own particular teaching has come. 

          The Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) theology of Christian initiation laid the original, conceptual stepping-stones, upon which all succeeding Christian Bible interpreters have walked. A better understanding of the RCC teaching will supply us with greater insight as to where various subsequent groups have obtained their ideas. I find some very fascinating parallels between the RCC teaching of Confirmation and the Wesleyan/Holiness/Pentecostal understanding of the Baptism of the Spirit. It appears that the former is, in some important ways, the grandparent of the latter. 

          In broad terms RCC theology, as expressed in the Councils of Trent, teaches “regeneration was only another name for justification.” On the other hand, Roman Catholics from the mystical tradition, believed that regeneration “meant essentially union with God afforded to the soul that was emptied of the world and selfhood.”⁸Even so, for our interests, a more specific understanding of RCC Regeneration and Spirit-baptism must be addressed.  ,⁹ one is regenerated (infused with grace) at water baptism. But baptism is not the place where one is Spirit-baptized. This is because the work of the Spirit is trifurcated or divided into three parts. Christian initiation in the RCC consists of three sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. It is in the sacrament of Confirmation, subsequent to baptism and therefore, regeneration, where one is given the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, (after a quotation of Acts 8:14-17) it states:

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17).  Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds.¹⁰

          The reception of the Spirit in Confirmation is seen as a greater endowment of the Spirit:

[B]y the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit.¹¹ 

          Confirmation fulfills the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit spoken about on the Day of Pentecost: 

This fullness of the Spirit was not to remain uniquely the Messiah's, but was to be communicated to the whole messianic people. 93 On several occasions Christ promised this outpouring of the Spirit, 94 a promise which he fulfilled first on Easter Sunday and then more strikingly at Pentecost. 95 Filled with the Holy Spirit the apostles began to proclaim "the mighty works of God," and Peter declared this outpouring of the Spirit to be the sign of the messianic age. 96 Those who believed in the apostolic preaching and were baptized received the gift of the Holy Spirit in their turn.¹²

It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.¹³ 

          It is in Confirmation where the initiate is “sealed” or “anointed” with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in Confirmation, one is given the gift of the Spirit, baptized with the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, sealed and anointed with the Spirit:

In treating the rite of Confirmation, it is fitting to consider the sign of anointing and what it signifies and imprints: a spiritual seal.¹⁴ 

          As said above, in RCC theology Christian initiation is a composite of three sacraments. One is not truly initiated into the Christian Church unless all three sacraments of initiation have been followed. Each has a distinct work of the Spirit accompanying: 

Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive the sacrament of Confirmation. 121 Since Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist form a unity, it follows that "the faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the appropriate time," 122 for without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.¹⁵

          RCC initiation is sacerdotal. This means that it cannot be accomplished without the service of a priest (minister). This is true for Confirmation. Confirmation must be administered by a bishop (a priest if a bishop confers it). The rationale for this is explained in the catechism: 

Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.¹⁶ 

          The condition of the candidate for Confirmation is important. In preparation for receiving the gift of the Spirit, one must receive Penance and engage in “more intense prayer.” Later in Church history we will see this appear again in the seeking and praying for the “baptism of the Spirit” in the Holiness and Pentecostal Movements. 

To receive Confirmation one must be in a state of grace. One should receive the sacrament of Penance in order to be cleansed for the gift of the Holy Spirit. More intense prayer should prepare one to receive the strength and graces of the Holy Spirit with docility and readiness to act.¹⁷ 

          It should be said that in the early years of the RCC all these sacraments were conducted at the same time, as they always have been by the Eastern Orthodox, so as to prevent a perception of splitting the work of the Spirit. But certain conditions created a time-lapse or subsequence in administering these sacraments:

In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a "double sacrament," according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations. In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments. The East has kept them united, so that Confirmation is conferred by the priest who baptizes.¹⁸ 

          The point of all this is that practical considerations dictated a trichotomy be created both in administration and conception of how the Spirit works in Christian initiation. 

          This is very important to our study of Spirit-baptism and the New Birth: It was this trichotomizing of conversion, or the “sequencing” of the work of the Spirit into three sacraments, which left the door open for later ideas, such as, the Wesleyan conception of a “second work of grace,” the Holiness Movement’s “entire sanctification,” the Keswick’s “higher Christian life,” and the Pentecostal form of the “Baptism of the Spirit.” The concept of subsequence is ancient and has been readily available to more recent Protestant traditions from which to borrow in formulating their doctrine of Spirit-baptism. I believe the Catholic teaching of splitting the gift of the Spirit (in confirmation) from the New Birth or regeneration (in baptism) is the deeper root of separating Spirit-baptism from the New Birth by later Holiness teachers and Pentecostals exponents. Time and space do not permit us to explore this in further detail here.¹⁹ 

          The Lutheran churches addressed this problem of subsequence head-on by teaching that all the work of the Spirit for initiation occurred with relative simultaneity. For them, water baptism, is the place in time where Christ baptizes the believer with the Spirit:         

Why are we not to seek a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” in addition to the Sacrament of Holy Baptism? Beyond sacramental Baptism we are to seek no other “baptism” because: A. there is no other God-given Baptism today beside the Sacrament of Holy Baptism; B. the sacrament is not a water-only or a Spirit-only baptism, but a water-and-Spirit Baptism; C. the special signs granted by the Holy Spirit were not another “baptism,” but they proved the truth and power of the apostles’ preaching.²⁰ 

          Generally, Lutheran theology identifies the Birth of the Spirit, or regeneration, and the Baptism with the Spirit, with the sacrament of water baptism. Martin Luther expressed that water baptism was necessary for salvation and that regeneration occurred in it. He also made it clear that the power of water baptism was the “power of the Word of God” which awakened faith. He balanced his statements on baptism and justification by faith by stating: 

Baptism is no more than an outward sign that the divine promise ought to admonish us. . . . If a man cannot have it or refuses it, he is not condemned, so long as he believes the Gospel. For where the Gospel is, there is baptism and all else that a Christian man needs.”²¹ 

          The Augsburg Confession of 1530, a Lutheran confession, states about justification and water baptism: 

It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgivenss of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for His sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are give to us. For god will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness, as Paul says in Rom. 3:21-26 and 4:5.²² 

It is taught among us that Baptism is necessary and that grace is offered through it. Children, tool, should be baptized, for in Baptism they are committed to god and become acceptable to Him.²³

         The Lutheran view of conversion holds Spirit-baptism as synchronous with the Birth of the Spirit, also called regeneration. Therefore the Pentecostal view of subsequence is a foreign idea to Lutheran thought. Lutherans have always thought of the Birth of the Spirit and Baptism of the Spirit as occurring simultaneously.

The Reformation restored to regeneration its firm connection with God’s act of salvation in Christ. In the forgiveness of sin man finds the basis of a new existence. The faith that receives this blessing is, according to Luther, the new birth.²⁴ 

          It is important to note that among the Lutheran reformers there remained a very strong regeneration impetus from their RCC roots. They tended to speak more  of regeneration as a work subsequent to justification. In the case of Melanchthon, he first understood regeneration, “as the ‘rightness of heart’ demanded by God as ‘obedience toward the Gospel.’”²⁵ However, in time, he moved toward Luther’s view and emphasized regeneration in terms of the new life begun through forgiveness in justification by faith. Other Lutherans, however did not change in their understanding, but continued to assert a view more consistent with their RCC heritage. They believed that regeneration was, in some sense, split from justification. These were the leaders of the movement known as Pietism. 

          A variation in the traditional Lutheran view of regeneration began to emerge among Lutherans in the latter 17^th century. In 1675, a Lutheran pastor, Philip Jacob Spener, wrote his classic book Pia Desideria (Pious Desires). This book marked a significant direction in Protestantism and gained prominence for the movement known as Pietism. Spener and his teachings are very important to the history of the New Birth. Spener’s background in Catholic mysticism was instrumental to his contributions to Pietism.  

Spener drew from a tradition whose characteristic “is the central place given to regeneration (a biological image) instead of justification (a forensic image). The language of “rebirth,” “new man,” “inner man,” “illumination,” “edification,” and “union of Christ with the soul,” is common to Spener and to the older mystics.²⁶ 

          He was extremely disturbed by the condition of the Lutheran clergy of his day. The Lutheran churches, because they were state churches, became incurably entangled with secular powers and politics. Therefore, there was a general deterioration into formalized orthodoxy. Spener and others renounced the corrupted clergy and called for a renewal. He saw justification as only the beginning of the Christian life, and that personal regeneration was necessary to complete justification. This understanding follows the RCC teaching that sanctification is synonymous with justification. As in RCC theology, one could be justified without being fully regenerate. This is a shift from the Reformation view of justification, and a return to RCC theology. One cannot be justified without being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. 

The twin principles of the Reformation figured highly in Pietism but not without change and development. The language of salvation changed from its forensic, legal character to a more biological and organic type of expression. No Pietist would deny or disregard the gospel of the justification of a sinner by the free grace of God. But a Pietist would express reservation as to the sufficiency of the language of justification to encompass the scope of God’s saving activity.²⁷ 

          It was the emphasis of Pietism on personal, individual piety, and equating regeneration with sanctification, that urged many Christians to focus more on the “new birth” or regeneration than on the Reformation understanding of justification by faith. Pietism implied that justification by faith was insufficient to save, without an accompanying inner transformation of the heart, and the experience of true Christian love. This logically led to a depreciation, or subordination of justification to sanctification - a clear pattern of Pietistic influence throughout Church history. 

Regeneration was for Spener what justification had been for Luther, and he began his ministry at Berlin with sixty-two sermons on Wiedergeburt. The “born again” figure of speech, which has remained popular in many strands of Protestantism, has strong roots in German Pietism. For Spener this biological Johannine and Pauline metaphor represented a completion and enhancing of the equally biblical juridical metaphor of justification.²⁸ 

          The idea of New Birth became “the underlying motif of Pietistic theology. It is said that this biological metaphor occupied for Spener and his followers the place which the juridical metaphor of justification occupied for Luther and the other mainline Reformers.”²⁹ However accurate this view might be, it would be wrong to say that the Reformers were lacking interest or concern for piety. Their writings show a great interest in matters of Christian spirituality and piety. The Reformed view of regeneration or New Birth was just as vital to their understanding of the Christian life. But it did not locate regeneration in the post-conversion experiential spirituality of the Christian. Rather, they taught that regeneration occurred prior to conversion in the order of salvation (ordo salutis). Regeneration was the necessary transformation of the heart which made faith in Christ possible. New Birth was essential because unless the sinner was reborn he had no ability to believe. The heart must be changed to a disposition of faith in God. 

          It is very hard to over stress the impact of Pietism’s emphasis on regeneration over justification for future Christian movements. This supplanting of justification with regeneration, and the identification of regeneration with sanctification, gave rise to a number of Protestant pietistic groups which followed.  Spener had a direct impact on these groups through their theological leaders. For example, he was the sponsor at the baptism of Nicholas Zinzendorf, who founded the Moravians. And, it was the Moravians who had a profound influence on John Wesley’s Methodism. All of the second work of grace movements - Perfectionist and Holiness - have their earliest roots in the Pietist emphasis of personal sanctification as regeneration. 

    I want to make it clear, that, Pietism was a very positive influence on the Church in many ways. My statements here are no attempt to minimize its healthy influence toward personal piety and renewal. If, however, we are to understand the beliefs and practices which play a vital role in the Christian understanding of the New Birth, we must pay careful attention to the significant role of Pietism in shaping past and present views of regeneration.