Part III  –  Application to Pentecostal Theology

SUBPART C  –  CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

Article 2 –  DEPARTURE FROM THE PENTECOSTAL TEACHING

 a.  Harold Horton; Receiving Without Tarrying

 b.  Dennis Bennett; Release of the Holy Spirit

i.    New Notoriety for the Baptism & Bennett’s Rise as a Teacher

ii.   The Doctrine of Release

iii.   Self-Procured Baptism

iv.   Doctrine of Release as an Accommodation for Clerical Antagonism to Pentecost

v.    The Doctrine as a Distortion of Scriptural Pneumatology

This article may be viewed in video format at the Youtube link below:

Article 2 –  DEPARTURE FROM THE PENTECOSTAL TEACHING

a.  Harold Horton; Receiving Without Tarrying

As the twentieth century wore on, the doctrines that made the Pentecostal movement anathema to the historical denominations would become inconvenient even unto itself.  The fire of early Pentecost diminished, giving way to the culture and its more humanistic interests which began to take the ascendancy over those principles inherent to the baptism.  As well, the idea of waiting upon God for the moment of divine sealing in the faith increasingly ran against the grain of humanistic sensibility; sensibilities that held more sway for the second generation and those whose grasp of Pentecost was more in the vein of a theological assent than a divine call to pursue God.  A Pentecostal Church comprised of single-hearted seekers after Christ became the exception rather than the rule.  Those brass doctrines that were easily borne in the strength of a divinely endowed fervor were not so willingly borne in a condition of lukewarmness wherein natural and non-spiritual affairs were keenly perceived and held the sway.

The classical doctrines of Pentecost were not particularly accommodating to humanistic concerns.  In fact, Pentecostals and their doctrine conveyed a hardness in the face of the human condition that tended to repel those whose object was ease and reassurance in religion.  One distinctly non-humanistic aspect of Pentecostal teaching was the professed necessity of “waiting” upon God as the baptizer in the Holy Spirit.  Early Pentecostals referred to this principle as “tarrying” for the Holy Ghost.  Churches held tarrying meetings and Pentecostal evangelists would designate a special room for seekers to “tarry” for the Holy Spirit.   Baptisms in the Holy Ghost as demonstrated by speaking in tongues were so frequent during these times of tarrying that Pentecostals exuded a holy-confidence in the matter – as if they all shared a special secret that Jesus was ready and willing if all one were to do was to spend the time to “seek.”  If one were only to knock the door would be gloriously opened!

As concerns human began to preponderate over concerns spiritual, the kingdom of God was less sought after.  Within a lukewarm church, men less frequently sought the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Indeed, they were less encouraged to do so as malaise grew in the ministry.  However this did not entirely remove the psychological need to feel one had the full benefits of Christ’s work in their life, and thus the church developed doctrine for the purpose of allowing men to accommodate the truth of Pentecost while their own soul was allowed to remain aloof from its effect  One such teaching was that referred to as Receiving Without Tarrying put forward during the Latter Rain and Charismatic Movements, and remarkably even by some early Pentecostal leaders, e.g. Harold Horton.

Harold Horton was a Methodist minister who had converted to Pentecost and became an influential Pentecostal teacher of the late 1920’s and 1930’s.[1]

Horton made something of an assault upon the classic Pentecostal teaching that we must “wait upon God” (ie. “tarry”) for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  His pamphlet  entitled Receiving Without “Tarrying” begins with a lament over those he observes as coming to the altar continuously to pray for and to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit without obtaining their petition.  He laments; “the tragedy of thousands who have engaged in the heartbreaking program, and finally giving up in despair, seeking no more, disappointed, disillusioned, hopeless.” [2] 

Horton asserted that the Pentecostal Churches had been misguided by the notion that we are to “tarry” for the Holy Spirit and maintained that Jesus had only intended this direction; “to a limited few on a limited occasion”, namely, the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Jerusalem church.  He emphasized that; “on no occasion did anybody wait for the baptism in New Testament days . .Since Pentecost it is both unnecessary and unscriptural to tarry.”[3]

This stance begged the question of what was Horton’s answer for a seeker’s quest for the baptism of the Holy Ghost?  Strangely, his answer was that rather than waiting the seeker should act!  The seeker should immediately; “Drink! Drink! Drink!”[4] on the rationale that the Holy Spirit was already given at Pentecost.  Horton therefore reversed the classic Pentecostal order of a Petition followed by an Answer.  No longer was it a matter of Christ’s autonomy to baptize a member into His body, it was now the believer’s authority to “take it.”   Horton writes:

Why not elevate faith to the point where we expect the blessing immediately we seek it? . . . Why not I say advance faith to the point where we receive at once?  If God says to us “be filled with the Spirit”, He certainly does not wish us to wait until He fills us.  If God had said to us “be filled with bread or wine or milk” He would expect us to take Him at His word and be filled with bread or wine or milk by our own personal act of grasping faith. [5]

This doctrine seemed very strange coming from the pen of a monumental defender of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence.  But Horton was not suggesting that tongues was no longer the evidence of the baptism, he was rather asserting that the baptism is at all times within the hands of the believer on the rationale that:

When you believe you receive.  When you receive, and then only, you have the sign that you have believed . . . Believing could not possibly go without receiving.  If you have not received, it is because you have not believed you have received.[6]

Horton was asserting faith as an implement to be taken up and used to demand what was already ours by inheritance.  But if the baptism was the prerogative of Jesus Christ, then Horton’s way of thinking held truly ominous implications!  Consider Horton’s words:

The Spirit will not jump down your throat and move your tongue.  You must drink of the Spirit and move your own tongue.  That is faith; the opposite of fear; Fear that has kept you out of your inheritance all this time.  Leap in now.  Violently seize.  [7]

By describing the sign of tongues in overtly-volitional terms, Horton was at profound odds with the classic Pentecostal teaching which maintained that the sign of tongues accompanying Spirit baptism was characterized by non-volitional phenomenon, ie.  “as the Spirit gives utterance.”  To Horton’s thinking, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was simply not a matter of waiting upon God, rather it was a right of inheritance to be claimed under the guise of a principle so irreproachable as faith.  Thus a common evangelical stumbling-point, ie. presumption concerning the baptism began to become a stumbling point for Pentecostals which in turn became one of the key stumbling-blocks for Charismatic believers.

b.  Dennis Bennett; Release of the Holy Spirit

             i.   New Notoriety for the Baptism & Bennett’s Rise as a Teacher

Despite the dramatic outpourings and revivals that occurred in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the historical denominations remained largely-aloof from the Pentecostal experience until the 1960’s.  The baptism of the Holy Spirit was brought to the fore of public attention during the summer of 1960 when Newsweek and Time magazine each ran a story on an Episcopalian priest in Van Nuys, California that had been rejected from his parish after acknowledging he had spoken in tongues.  Dennis Bennett had sought the Pentecostal experience after observing a new vibrancy of faith brought into St. Mark’s parish by a few of his members that had received the baptism.  After becoming convinced over a year earlier that the experience was of God, Bennett experienced the baptism for himself in 1959.  As others in St. Mark’s were receiving the baptism, Bennett revealed the matter to his conservative-congregation on April 3, 1960.  He met with a hostile-reaction that resulted in his resignation as rector.  A terse prohibition of tongues was later issued by the Episcopal bishop of California.  Following his departure from St. Mark’s, Bennett was invited to assume charge of St. Luke’s in Seattle, Washington where his parish became a center of Charismatic teaching and activity.[8a]

ii.   The Doctrine of Release

Following the notoriety he received from his experience at St. Mark’s, Bennett quickly became a widely accepted expert on the doctrine of Spirit baptism. Following the death of his first wife, Elberta, he was joined in the teaching ministry in 1966 by his second wife, Rita.  Prior to her marriage to Dennis, Rita had a charismatic teaching ministry of her own in Spokane, Washington.  However, their teaching took a remarkable departure from the classic Pentecostal doctrines.  Rather than teaching the baptism straightforwardly, as God giving His Holy Spirit, Bennett taught substantially the reverse.  He began to teach that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was the release of the already indwelling Spirit[8b] from within oneself in order to baptize one’s entire being.[8c]  This was an enormous departure from Pentecostal doctrine and arguably from Scripture.  But it was also a predictable accommodation for the liturgical denominations who would not allow the suggestion that their sacramental traditions had been wanting something of the Spirit of God.

While Bennett’s doctrine constituted a rejection of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence, this aspect was somewhat veiled in that he did acknowledge that; “when you are baptized in the Spirit you will speak in tongues”.[11]  While this might sound like an affirmation of Initial Evidence, he also stated; “you don’t have to speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit living in you.”  To Pentecostal-ears this would sound contradictory.  But Bennett’s view of the baptism as a release from within allowed him to assert what would otherwise have been a contradiction.   Therefore Bennett’s doctrine was an even more fundamentally-profound repudiation of Initial Evidence than had occurred under F.F. Bosworth.  Bennett acknowledged that the baptism always came with tongues, but he cut Pentecostal-doctrine off at the knees by denying the baptism to be the event marking the giving of the Holy Spirit.   For Bennett, Pentecost was releasing the Spirit from within oneself.

This sentiment served to ‘place the cart ahead of the horse’ when it came to the meaning of tongues.  Rather than tongues as constituting that Scriptural sign that God had acted upon His covenant to give the gift of the Holy Spirit, tongues now became a means.  Bennett writes:

Speaking in tongues is the golden key that unlocks your spirit to allow the Holy Spirit to flow out and baptize the rest of your being.[12]

iii.   Self-Procured Baptism

And because tongues (as a sign of the baptism) was now confused with the spiritual gift, the teaching became likewise confused in terms of discerning the agency of God in the work versus the agency of man.  Rather than waiting upon God’s time to send the Spirit, it was now for the man to bring forth from himself the Holy Ghost.  He writes:

In order to speak in tongues you have to “get out of the boat,” that is, take a step of faith, and begin to speak, just as Peter began to walk . . . . . God does not speak in tongues, and He isn’t going to make you speak, as if He were a ventriloquist, and you the dummy![13]

But this was in direct opposition to what the Pentecostal movement had asserted as the Bible evidence!  The doctrine of Topeka that was proclaimed abroad at Azusa declared just that!  And Acts 2:4 was practically the signature verse of the Pentecostal-movement, identifying the Spirit’s reception with speaking; “with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance”.[14]  For Pentecostals, this was a vital aspect of the gospel-doctrine, ie. the non-volitional aspect of the experience!  This is what differentiated tongues as a sign from tongues as a gift.  Charismatic teaching was becoming an attempt to humanly-reproduce the baptism as is clear from Bennett’s teaching:

Try to persuade them to begin, even if it is an “oh” or an “ah” or just a sigh, or even a groan. . . . If people once get the idea they need to begin to make sounds, they will usually start to speak in tongues. . . . Point out to them they must stop speaking English, or any other language they know, before they can begin to speak in tongues.  You can’t talk two languages at once![15]

Rather than a miraculous intervention of Christ to transact His baptism, the teaching of the baptism began to resemble something of a “how to” course to bring it about for oneself:

Remember that you are going to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit.  Receiving is something you do.  I can offer you a five-dollar bill, but unless you receive it, I cannot do anything more about it.[16]

Bennett goes so far as to say:

I actually believe that sitting is the best posture for receiving the Spirit.[17]

Under Bennett’s teaching, Pentecost took on the character of something self-procured – a mere refining of something already–possessed.  Tongues was no longer a sign one had received the Holy Spirit – it was a growth-step in one’s spirituality.  What had arisen as an effort to assuage an offended religious sentiment that “we already have the Spirit” only pushed the doctrine of the baptism further a-field off its true meaning.  This wresting of Scripture so as not to offend religious sensibility devolved into a jumble of reasoning impossible to rationally maintain from Scripture.  For instance, in making the proper argument that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is always accompanied by tongues, Bennett quotes from the commentary of Matthew Henry as if not recognizing that his own citation scuttles his thesis:

They laid their hands on them, to signify that their prayers were answered, and “that the gift of the Holy Ghost was conferred upon them;”  for upon the use of this sign, “they received the Holy Ghost,  and spoke with tongues.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Vol VI pg 100)   [emphasis added] [18]  

While Bennett’s teaching of the release of the Holy Spirit was highly-controversial in its day, it became increasingly less-so as time wore on.  Eventually it would become the common assumption held by many Charismatics and the necessary-premise of the present-day movement known as the Third Wave.

iv.  Doctrine of Release as an Accommodation for Clerical Antagonism to Pentecost

Given there is no Scripture that uses the word “release” in connection with the Holy Spirit, Bennett’s teaching of the release of the Holy Spirit would seem entirely-contrived – an intellectual-adaptation of the doctrine of Pentecost to accommodate organized religion.   Because of the very arbitrary nature of this doctrine it is difficult to straightway contradict through Scripture, except through its unorthodox implications.

As earlier-related, one heterodox aspect of the doctrine is that it intrudes upon the autonomy of Christ as the baptizer in the Holy Ghost.  Rather than a sovereign act of God, the baptism takes the form of a self-procured initiation into spiritual things.  This was a grievous mistake even within the early church when it came to the baptism of the Holy Spirit!    When one reads the writings of church leaders that followed the apostles, one will sense a shifting of emphasis away from the Person of Jesus Christ, and towards the church and its holy sacraments.  While the same language is employed by those of the post-apostolic period, their meaning was commonly skewed towards the authority of the church, and the divinely-ordained sacraments of the church.  A good example of this strong trend can be found in a quotation of Cyprian of Carthage who only 150 years after the apostles writes concerning the sacrament of water baptism:

It is required then, that the water should first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, so that it may wash away by its baptism the sins of the man who is baptized.  For the Lord says by Ezekiel the prophet: ‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed from all your filthiness.’ . . . The very question that is asked in baptism is a witness of the truth.  For when we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy church?’ we are saying that remission of sins is not granted except in the church. [19]

In this modern post-Reformation era we might recognize that Cyprian was operating in a great deal of presumption in expanding the sacramental rite of water baptism so as to invade the spiritual-offices of Christ.  While water-baptism is a symbol for our burial into the death of Christ, is it the rite of water baptism that does any real work?  No indeed!  The true and profound work is a spiritual-operation of being conformed to Christ’s death, of which water baptism is only the symbol!  The placing of inordinate significance upon water-baptism as the means is characteristic of the church in the centuries following the apostles since this was a physical act for which the church could assume a prominent role even while the true work of the Spirit was absent.  Human agency (including the church) cannot “bury us with Christ” any more than human agency can raise us from the dead with Christ.

 Therefore the church should not take too much credit for the work of the Spirit, which is transacted by means of faith.  The true work of sanctification belongs to the Spirit of God – not to the church.  Therefore so much the true work of baptism.  But the definite tendency of the organized church has been to ratchet-up the significance of man’s agency in the work of God until reaching the point wherein there was little distinction between Christ and clergy.  Peter attests the same:

 The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:                             I Peter 3:21

Peter tells us that “baptism” is “the like figure”, meaning that it is symbolic of something.  His reference is the preceding verse wherein he says; “eight persons were brought safely through the water”.[20]  This example from Noah’s ark is itself symbolic of Peter’s earlier reference wherein he describes our salvation as; “having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit”.  Therefore water baptism is only a symbol.  In itself, it does not constitute “the putting away of the filth of the flesh”.    To say otherwise, would render the believer as his own high priest independent of Christ to wash us and to sanctify.

We find that Cyprian’s allusion to our; “sins being put away in baptism” does not stand the test of Scripture and quickly becomes problematic as anyone will discover that has been baptized in water and found their sins to continue to beset them!  For the baptism was not the deliverance, rather it was a pledge – as a promise was really all that was within our power in the first place.  Therefore Cyprian immediately renders the gospel suspect to those that have been water-baptized and do not enter upon all the promises of God based upon their water-baptism.  And, (as the gospel clearly shows, as does the Lamp-stand model), the redemptive phase of water baptism occupies the same redemptive-operation (or phase) as does Spirit-baptism.  Those placing too much focus upon the role of the church and the human facilitation of redemption soon become deflated of faith and compromised in their ability to resist the sin that easily besets them.  They have confused the physical-act of baptism and possibly spirit-baptism) for the further work of the Spirit of transacting within us, the death and resurrection of Christ that constitutes our establishment.

While water-baptism occupies the agency of man, Spirit-baptism occupies the agency of God.  Nonetheless, God would have us ask Him for the experience before it is given to us.  Jesus used such words as; “seek”, “ask”, and to “knock” when it came to the gift of the Holy Spirit.  He never suggested that we “take”, “demand”, or “procure” the Holy Spirit.  For this is His province as the baptizer in the Holy Ghost, as declared by John the Baptist who testified of Jesus Christ:

Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, & remaining on Him,  the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.                                  John 1:33

The covenant in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not self-effectuating or self-transacting.  This is a covenant of marriage which both sides must undertake as a covenant of eternal union with God through Christ.  This means that while the church has a duty to correctly teach the baptism, to pray for the baptism, and to lay hands upon those who desire the baptism, the church cannot itself induce the baptism on behalf of the recipient.  Neither can the recipient induce the baptism on behalf of himself or herself.

Just as the ancient church fathers presumed in their sacramental-offices so do many holding sacramental-offices presume today.  The doctrines of God are not to be wrested for the  comfort of organized religion and its institutions, as Bennett even acknowledges he does:

Also, ‘baptism in the Spirit’ can trouble people from the sacramental traditions, such as Lutherans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox and also such groups as the Church of Christ,  because these all lay great emphasis on the outward rite of water baptism, and they cannot understand why people are being urged to seek another baptism. . . . I don’t want to turn people off before they read the book; I want them to find out what I am actually saying;  that’s why I used the expression “release of the Spirit” in the title.

However, Bennett does not use the expression “release of the Spirit” merely as a persuasive-ploy.  His book advances the expression as the proper means of viewing the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that, without any proof of Scripture – doing great disservice to the church.

v.   The Doctrine as a Distortion of Scriptural Pneumatology

It is certainly possible to be baptized in the Spirit before we are baptized in water.  This is demonstrated in the experience in the house of Cornelius, during which Peter said:

  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,  which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?                                   Acts 10:47

However, this does not operate in reverse.  We do not have the spiritual-proxy to initiate the Spirit’s baptism by means of water-baptism.  Neither do we have the spiritual-proxy to initiate Spirit-baptism by any other means than to petition God in the name of Jesus Christ.  This is a function that belongs to Jesus Christ alone as the spiritual “head” of mankind.  This is why John the Baptist was very clear to differentiate between his act relating to water, and Christ’s act relating to the Spirit, saying:

 I indeed have baptized you with water: but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.                                                                                     Mark 1:8

The gospel of Christ tells us to receive water-baptism upon a profession of faith in Christ, but this is not a formula for receiving the Holy Spirit.  Again, we receive the Holy Spirit by making request to God in the name of Jesus Christ.  By our seeking of God and asking Him for His Spirit, this principle is upheld, and the proper basis is established that attends anything we receive from God, ie. prayer and petition.  Therefore we are told by the Lord:

 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children:   how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?                                                                                         Luke 11:13

Some will point out what appears to be an exception to this rule; “Wasn’t the Holy Spirit also conferred upon the laying-on of hands by the apostles?”  This did occur, but by no means contradicts the important principles just expressed.  Let’s consider those accounts.

The first account is when the apostles went to Samaria, a place notorious for its idolatry as evident by the Lord’s discussion with the Samaritan woman at the well outside the town of Sychar.  Recall that Philip had visited the region and God was doing miracles through him.  At the same time there was a magician by the name “Simon” who was performing signs as well as Philip and who was claiming to be someone great.  In fact the people were referring to him as; “the Great Power of God”.[21]  Therefore, when Peter and John visited the region as well, there was a particular danger posed by these false manifestations.  Therefore it was necessary that the apostles be particularly identified as the true ministers of the gospel.  While Philip was doing miracles, the people had not received the Holy Spirit under His preaching.[22]  Therefore Peter and John were called upon to visit Samaria.  Consider what was said:

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter & John, who came down  & prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.                           Acts 8:14-15

 It was not until after the apostles made specific request in prayer on behalf of these Samaritans that:

Then they began laying their hands on them, & they were receiving the Holy Spirit.                                                                                      Acts 8:17

 Therefore this account is entirely consistent with the principles discussed previously!  We should not misunderstand and suppose that the apostles had any proxy in themselves to confer the Holy Spirit upon anyone!  Rather they asked God on the behalf of others.  If we misunderstand what occurred, then we share the like-perspective with Simon the magician.  For he misunderstood as well, and presumed that the apostles had a power to confer the Holy Spirit; this was a power he coveted, and for which he nearly fell under the judgment of God.

The second occasion for receiving the Spirit through the laying on of hands was when Ananias laid hands on Saul (later, “Paul”).  However, Ananias had no such proxy in himself, rather he was sent by Jesus Christ on a specific commission.

Finally, we have the incident at Ephesus, wherein Paul came across some disciples that had never heard of the Holy Spirit.  We read:

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; & they spoke with tongues, & prophesied.                                                        Acts 19:6

Some might argue this to be a circumstance wherein an apostle exercised a proxy to baptize in the Holy Spirit.  However, that would be an assumption as we have no information as to whether Paul laid hands and prayed a petition for the baptism in the Spirit, or whether he did this in an autonomous manner.  If he did this autonomously, it would be the only example of such an act in Scripture.  Therefore it seems more likely that he laid hands on them in petition to God that they would receive the Spirit, and his prayer was answered by Christ baptizing them.

We do not baptize ourselves into the body of Christ.  We do not have the proxy of Christ to induce the Spirit’s baptism.  This is the exclusive office of Jesus Christ Whose own blood has established God’s covenant.  Neither is the baptism of the Holy Spirit a “releasing of the Holy Spirit” within oneself.  That the Holy Spirit does not come from a place within to baptize is clear from the language of Scripture:

  But you shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:                                                                                     Acts 1:8

   While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.                                                                                     Acts 10:44

 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them;   & they spake with tongues, & prophesied.                                        Acts 19:6

Dennis Bennett was an able communicator of the Pentecostal experience to the liturgical denominations, and his Seattle church became a worldwide center for those seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[23] He maintained a radio ministry in Seattle,[24] a writing ministry, and was instrumental in spreading the message of the baptism of the Holy Spirit to liturgical denominations around the world.[25]  Bennett even documents many within the Roman Catholic clergy as receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit under his ministry.[26]

Although an effective communicator, Bennett communicated a confused doctrine concerning Pentecost.  While soon after his having experienced the baptism, we find him expressing the experience as the receiving of the Holy Spirit, his efforts to export the experience into the liturgical denominations brought his teaching into confusion as he was forced to teach the baptism in such a way as to intrude upon the offices of Christ.  His teaching was highly influential during the Charismatic movement, particularly among the liturgical denominations such as Lutheran, Episcopalian, Anglican, and Roman Catholic.  The teaching constituted a profound doctrinal backslide from Topeka  of January 1, 1901, as the restored work was portrayed in such a way as to accommodate concerns of this world and to make Pentecost salable to the natural-mind.