Sunday, March 25, 2018

Four Views Of Spirit-Baptism

About Dr Barry Chant
Barry Chant is an ordained minister in the CRC Churches Int. He is a regular speaker at church services, seminars, conferences and conventions. Hundreds of thousands of his books have been sold around the world. He has degrees in arts, theology and ministry, a diploma in education and a PhD in history. He was the founding president of Tabor College, Australia.
Terms of Use
You are welcome to read, download and print this document without cost. If you want to pass on copies to others or use them in your local church Bible study group or Christian fellowship, please acknowledge the name of the author (Dr Barry Chant), the copyright date and the source of the material (

Also available here in PDF

The question of baptism in the Spirit has been a controversial one for a long time. Part of the problem lies in the different ways we use the term. It can easily mean different things to different people. It is this different usage which generally distinguishes Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics and Third Wavers from one another.
Surprisingly enough, the phrase ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ doesn’t actually occur in Scripture. This may seem like splitting hairs, because the verbal form ‘baptise in the Spirit’ does. But actually, realising this fact ought to set a red light or two flashing. Nouns tend to result in theological definitions. Verbs tend to speak of a dynamic experience. The biblical emphasis is clearly on the latter, not the former.
The Evangelical view
The Evangelical view is that we are baptised in the Holy Spirit at the moment of regeneration. or, as an integral element of conversion.
Key texts are Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13. Gordon Fee describes the Evangelical position like this—
• Paul frequently refers to conversion in terms of the Spirit (Romans 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:21; Titus 3:6; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 6:17)
• The Spirit plays a leading role in describing what happens to the believer (Galatians 3:2-5; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 12:13)
• Believers and non-believers are described in terms of having or not having the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:6-16; 12:3; Romans 8:9)
Romans 8:9 is a foundational text — ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to him’. On the basis of this, Evangelicals argue that every believer has the Spirit and therefore, given that there is but one Spirit, there is no possibility of any additional or subsequent receiving of the Spirit. Hence, it is plain that we are baptised in the Spirit at the moment of believing.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 12:13 is seen as plainly teaching that it is by baptism in the Spirit that we become members of the body of Christ. ‘For in one Spirit, we were all baptised into one body.’ This is seen as indisputable evidence that there is no such thing as a baptism in the Spirit subsequent to conversion. James Dunn says—
…1 Cor 12:13, where the initiatory character is clear beyond any serious dispute: …that is, membership in the body of Christ is what baptism in the Spirit brings about. The conclusion is irresistible, that if a theology of ‘baptism in the Spirit’ is to be based on the NT teaching on the subject, it must refer to the beginning of the Christian experience, the action by which God draws the individual into the sphere of the Spirit, into the community of those ‘being saved’, and thus makes a decisive beginning of the work of saving grace in that individual.’
Writers like John Stott, Geoffrey Bingham and Ken Smith agree. For Evangelicals, the whole purpose of God is that men and women should be indwelt by the Spirit. All of salvation history was geared towards this great phenomenon—that human beings would become dwelling places for the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22; 3:11). Internationally renowned evangelist Billy Graham puts it like this—
The biblical truth, it seems to me, is that we are baptised into the body of Christ by the Spirit at conversion. This is the only Spirit baptism. At this time, we can and should be filled with the Holy Spirit, and afterward, be refilled, and even filled into all fullness. As has often been said, ‘One baptism, but many fillings.’ The perceived evidence of the indwelling Spirit is this promise of Scripture together with a deep, ongoing sense of assurance in the heart of the believer. Paul declares that it is the Spirit himself who testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children (Romans 8:16). The apostle John points out that we know we live in God and that God lives in us because he has given us his Spirit (1 John 4:13).
Passages in Acts which seem to indicate a subsequent experience of the Spirit are generally explained as being a-typical or as actually describing a conversion experience. So it is argued that the records of Acts 2, 8 and 19 described ‘ethnic’ Pentecosts which are never to be repeated. Smith even goes so far as to argue that even though the Samaritans had received the Word of God with great joy and been baptised in water (Acts 8:8, 12, 14), they were not actually converted until Peter and John came to pray with them for the Holy Spirit to come upon them.
It needs to be noted that the Evangelical position does not necessarily exclude the experience and exercise of the gifts of Christ. Evangelical and cessationist views are not the same. Nevertheless, the Evangelical position raises some interesting questions. If it is right, how do we explain Pentecostal experiences of the Spirit? If it is wrong, have most Evangelicals not been baptised in the Holy Spirit at all? Or are there other options?
The Pentecostal view
Pentecostals believe that baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience discrete from conversion with the normal initial sign of speaking in tongues.
The Pentecostal concept derives from the Wesleyan idea of ‘entire sanctification’ (or ‘Christian perfection’). According to Wesley, it was not enough to be converted. It was also necessary to be sanctified. This ‘entire sanctification’ was an identifiable experience which followed conversion—a so-called ‘second blessing’. Among Pentecostals, it came to be called baptism in the Holy Spirit with the immediate sign of tongues.
J.R.Williams writes—
Pentecostals view baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience that presupposes conversion… Pentecostals often speak of baptism in the Spirit as being both distinct from and subsequent to salvation… The distinctive event of Spirit baptism is primarily exhibited through speaking in tongues.
An undated pioneer leaflet distributed in Parramatta, New South Wales, in the 1920s declared—
In all of these outpourings of the Spirit, the same evidence was manifested, the speaking in tongues. The Holy Ghost gave us the three incidents of companies receiving the Holy Ghost to establish the fact that the Spirit always speaks in tongues through a baptised believer.
The Statement of Faith for Good News Hall, Australia’s first Pentecostal assembly, declared, `We believe that a definite physical manifestation accompanies the reception of the Holy Spirit.’The Assemblies of God Statement of Faith was even more plain—
(We believe) in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for all be¬lievers with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
This has continued to be the Pentecostal position. Some would argue that glossolalia is not an essential initial sign, but a normative one, but in practice, it is expected that it will occur.
The Pentecostal position is based on the view that in the Gospels and Acts there is a clear pattern of people being converted without having been baptised in the Spirit. Given that the phrase ‘receive the Holy Spirit’ is used in Acts about a discrete experience of the Spirit (eg Acts 8:15; 10:47), Pentecostals also use this phrase in this way.
So does this mean that those who are not so baptised in the Holy Spirit, are not part of the body of Christ? For all sorts of reasons, this is unacceptable. If we take a Pentecostal view, this would mean that only those who speak in tongues are members of the Church. If we take an Evangelical view, it would mean that millions of Pentecostal believers have been deceived.
A better understanding of the Pentecostal position can be found by taking up the image used by both John the Baptist and Jesus. Just as John baptised in water, so Jesus would baptise in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11,12; Acts 1:5). John immersed people in water ‘for’ or ‘with respect to’ repentance. But this repentance had already occurred prior to the baptism. So Jesus immerses us in the Spirit ‘for’ or ‘with respect to’ an incorporation into the body of Christ that has already occurred. It is not through being baptised in the Spirit that we are brought into Christ’s body; it is because we are already members of that body, by faith, that we are baptised in the Spirit.
The Pentecostal movement began in several places around the world at the beginning of the 20th century. Because of its radical emphasis on being baptised in the Spirit—and especially glossolalia—its early adherents usually found themselves cut off from mainline denominations. The result was a new movement embracing a large number of denominations such as the Assemblies of God, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, the Apostolic Church, the Church of God, the Elim Pentecostal Church, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Christian Revival Crusade and numerous others.
The Charismatic view
The charismatic view is that baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience discrete from conversion but not necessarily accompanied by the initial sign of tongues. It is sometimes called a ‘release’ or a ‘realisation’ of the Spirit.
The movement began in the 1960s in the US and Great Britain and in the 1970s in Australia. It was fundamentally Pentecostal but there was less insistence on ‘tongues’—or as this new movement began to call it, ‘glossolalia’. This time, its adherents were usually not evicted from their churches and remained as active members. Often denominational charismatic fellowships were formed.
Australian writer Geoff Waugh, a former Methodist, writes—
What about tongues? Some groups over-emphasise this evidence of the Spirit’s filling. When we pray for the fullness of the Spirit, we may experience this release, and some people in your group may have a prayer language, which is very meaning¬ful to them. That’s beautiful and biblical… However, we ought to avoid pressing our experience on to others. The gift of tongues is one evidence of the Spirit’s release. There are others.
American Lutheran pastor Larry Christenson puts it like this—
Lutheran Charismatics have generally steered clear of this Pentecostal position… (they) would recognize it (ie tongues) as AN evidence of being filled with the Spirit, but stop short of calling it THE evidence. .
Lederle sees several categories of opinion about the place of glossolalia. He himself tries hard, but unconvincingly, to dismiss the idea of ‘subsequence’ (ie that baptism in the Spirit normally succeeds conversion), although virtually all the people he cites hold to this position including leading charismatics such as Dennis Bennett (Anglican), Larry Christenson (Lutheran), Peter Hocken (Catholic), Steve Clark (Catholic), Rodman Williams (Presbyterian) and Howard Ervin (Baptist).
As Lederle points out, there have been various attempts to re-phrase the doctrine. Catholics, for example, tend to stress a sacramental approach. Hence, they may avoid the phrase ‘baptism in the Spirit’ and use other alternatives such as the ‘release of the Spirit’ they received at baptism. A charismatic Catholic document puts it like this—
Whatever the terminological decisions of each country it is important that all be saying the same thing, namely that the power of the Holy Spirit, given in Christian initiation but hitherto unexperienced, becomes a matter of personal experi¬ence.
To Catholics, this ‘actualisation’ of the reality of the Spirit given in baptism thus satisfies both Catholic and Pentecostal theology. In practice, most charismatics come back to the simple Wesleyan concept, usually accompanied by tongues. However, perhaps because of a laudable desire for unity, there is often a reluctance to claim that tongues ought to be the expected sign.
Larry Christenson argues persuasively for a serious appraisal of the Pentecostal approach, even if they have ‘over systematized their own perception and experience of the Holy Spirit.’
Given the worldwide spread and witness of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements… the church as a whole must consider questions not only of exegesis and systematic theology but also of the Spirit’s strategy. The emphasis on a personal Pentecost—an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in one’s life, a baptism with the Holy Spirit—how are we to understand it? Its key role in the amazing spread of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity is well documented, but what are we to make of it?…
Whether one understands this as an appropriation of something already received (Sacramental, Evangelical) or a reception of something promised (Pentecostal), the strategy of the Spirit will be served: the Spirit will be poured out; believers will talk about the Holy Spirit with a new sense of reality; they will walk in a new dimension of reality and power; and the Lord’s people will register gains against the powers that oppose the gospel.
So the charismatic view is less narrowly defined than the Pentecostal position, but nevertheless, it also strongly teaches that being converted and being baptised in the Spirit are not necessarily the same thing.
The Third Wave view
The so-called Third Wave view is that baptism in the Holy Spirit may occur either at regeneration or as a discrete experience, with or without signs. Spiritual gifts are an expression of this experience.
The Third Wave position is best represented by the Vineyard movement, founded by John Wimber. In Power Evangelism, Wimber argues that both Paul and Luke use the phrase ‘baptise in the Spirit’ differently. He tries to choose the best of both worlds—
Following this line of reasoning, which most conservative evangelicals agree with, the born-again experience is the consummate charismatic experience—what Paul would refer to as being baptised in the Holy Spirit. Any ensuing interaction between the individual and the Holy Spirit would come under the heading of ‘fillings,’ as taught by Paul. Further these fillings may happen again and again—they are both initiatory and repeatable.So, following Paul, it is probably best to speak of ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit.’ But in Luke we find warrant in using ‘being baptised with the Holy Spirit.’ Both terms convey the fact that it is urgent for Christians to seek sincerely the power of the Holy Spirit.
In his attempt to avoid taking a position one way or the other, Wimber actually finishes up with what looked like an ambiguous theology. In practice, he taught that every believer had the Spirit from the time of regeneration. This being so, every believer could use any spiritual gift at any time it is needed—
When I talk with evangelicals about the Holy Spirit, I ask if when they were born again they received the Spirit. If they answer yes (and they should), I tell them all that remains is to actualise what the Spirit has, all that is required is to release the gifts. I then lay hands on them and say, ‘Be filled with the Spirit’—and they are.
A 1994 conference organised by Wimber was described as being ‘for anyone who desires to minister with increasing effectiveness in the power of the Holy Spirit.’
Further, while Wimber was an enthusiast for spiritual gifts, in his writings, he does not give any special priority to tongues. ‘Tongues are not the focus of the Spirit’s filling.’ Yet, on the other hand, ‘too many evangelicals want the Spirit but not the Spirit’s gifts, an attitude that violates scriptural teaching.’
An official Vineyard publication, largely quoting Wimber, declares—
When a person is converted, he or she receives the Holy Spirit, although the Holy Spirit may not be experienced at that time. Conversion and the initial filling experience of the Holy Spirit can happen simultaneously (ie actualising His power and gifts). Anyone born again has the potential of experiencing the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit. We should expect this experience—Scripture teaches it is apart [sic] of the normal Christian life… Many evangelicals do want the Spirit but not the gifts (especially tongues), an attitude that violates scriptural teaching…
Wimber is said to have described his position as evangelical in theology but charismatic in experience. This is helpful, although it could be argued that the same could be said of Pentecostals and Charismatics.
While Australian theologian Geoffrey Bingham would deny that he belonged to the Third Wave movement—or to any such movement, for that matter—his theology is similar. He argues plainly that we are baptised in the Spirit at conversion and that we then have a need to be continually filled with the Spirit. Spiritual gifts are ‘part of Christ’s fullness’ and hence available to every believer. In pastoral practice, Bingham does encourage people to seek a specific infilling of the Holy Spirit. He both believes in and practises glossolalia.
In recent times, C.Peter Wagner has become the best known spokesman for the Third Wave movement, with basically a similar stance to that of Wimber.
A proposed synthesis
A dominant and profound teaching of the New Testament is that from the moment we become Christians, everything spiritual is ours. We have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). We have come to fullness of life in Christ (Colossians 2:9, 10). We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10). His divine promises have given us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3, 4). We lack nothing (1 Corinthians 1:7). Everything is in Christ and if we have him we have all we can possibly need (Ephesians 1:1-23; Colossians 1:1-23). This includes the Holy Spirit. Having received Christ, we are indwelt by the Spirit (Romans 8:9).
However, the problem is that often we do not claim or take possession of those blessings that are already ours. So we have peace in Christ but we do not live in a state of peace. We have joy but we do not rejoice. We are forgiven, but we are still beset by shame and guilt.
Similarly, we have the Spirit but we may not be living in the power of the Spirit. It is necessary for us to claim by faith this blessing that is already ours. ‘Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?’ asks Paul (Galatians 3:5). The truth is that the experience of immersion or empowerment by the Spirit is potentially ours from the moment of conversion. And for some it is a reality from that very point. For others, it comes later. Either way, the same evidence of being baptised in the Spirit can normally be expected, namely glossolalia.
It is not enough to say, ‘I have received the Spirit by faith’ if nothing in fact happens. What would we think of someone who testified to being filled with peace and joy but was still living in turmoil and misery? Or to another who rejoiced in being healed but was still in fact sick? By all means, let us thank God for these blessings and declare our expectation that they are already ours (as Jesus tells us to do in Mark 11:24). But this is not the same as actually experiencing them. We need to go on claiming them until they become a reality.
For some this will still seem inadequate. ‘The Spirit is more than potentially ours at conversion,’ they will say. This may be a fair comment. But nevertheless, this attempt at a synthesis of the various views still, I think, has much to commend it.

For us or in us?
The different understandings of the work of the Spirit between Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics finds natural expression in the kinds of songs they sing. The former tend to focus on the objective work of God in Christ for us; the latter on what God has done in us.
Evangelical songs remind us constantly of the great saving work of Christ on our behalf and the truth that everything depends on him. Charismatic songs remind us of the experiential nature of our salvation—that the work of Christ on the cross is actually of no value unless it is translated into personal experience.
Two current well-known songs illustrate the point very well. Jesus, Lover of my soul is widely sung in charismatic churches. It begins—
Jesus, lover of my soul,
Jesus, I will never let you go…

If this had been written by an Evangelical, the lyrics would probably read—
Jesus, lover of my soul,
Jesus, you will never let me go…

The original version focuses on the redemptive work of Christ in us; an Evangelical version would focus on Christ’s all-sufficient work for us. The original emphasises our dedication to Christ; the other his dedication to us.
Evangelicals see the sentiment in the original song as representing a fragile approach to the faith—that everything depends on us and our ability to hold on to Christ. Pentecostals argue that it is appropriate for us to express our passion for God in such fervent terms.
A second example is Reuben Morgan’s haunting and beautiful song, ‘What the Lord has done in me.’
Let the weak say, ‘I am strong’,
Let the poor say, ‘I am rich’,
Let the blind say, ‘I can see’,
It’s what the Lord has done in me…

If this had been written by an Evangelical, the last line would almost certainly read—
What the Lord has done for me
For Evangelicals, it is pointless talking about what the Lord has done in us unless we understand what the Lord has done for us. For Pentecostals, it is pointless talking about that the Lord has done for us unless we also know experientially what he has done in us. The danger for Evangelicals is that by being so focused on the Word they may miss a God-given experience of the Spirit; the danger for Pentecostals is that being so focused on the work of the Spirit, they may wander from the God-given authority of Scripture.
When Evangelicals depart from the Word, there is nothing else to inspire them. When Pentecostals drift from the Spirit, there is nothing to undergird them. Then, when they feel the loss of the Spirit, they may feel they have lost everything.
Clearly, the ideal and safe position is to focus both on what God has done for us and on what he does in us. This means boldly believing the declarative truths of the gospel and equally boldly claiming the experiential power of the gospel. It means both standing on the Word and walking in the Spirit.
Basic assumptions
Before consolidating our position too firmly, it is helpful to backtrack and ask ourselves two similar but quite different questions—
• If the Evangelical position is correct, what would we expect the New Testament to teach?
• If the Pentecostal/charismatic position is correct, what would we expect the New Testament to teach?
In this way, rather than beginning with Scripture and trying to read our viewpoint into it, we are beginning with a viewpoint and seeing whether the Scripture can be seen to endorse it. At first glance, this approach may seem like heresy—like a bad case of eisegesis. But in fact, it is quite the opposite. If our position is correct, then the New Testament will plainly teach it. If not, it will not. God’s Word is the authority.
So the answer to the first of the two questions above should be that both the historical books and the letters would clearly teach that conversion and baptism in the Spirit are synonymous, or at the very least, contemporaneous. The answer to the second question would be that both historical books and letters teach a distinction between conversion and empowering by the Spirit. And this is, in fact, what we find. While the teaching of the epistles could be debated, the difference between regeneration and baptism in the Holy Spirit is plain in Gospels and Acts.
But even so, the letters in no way contradict this position. The reason is not hard to find. Given that they are writing to Christian believers, looking back, the writers do not necessarily distinguish between being born again and being baptised in the Spirit. In the same way, someone writing to university graduates about mathematics, for example, might refer to basic skills or theorems, but with no particular reference to when they learned them, whether at primary or secondary or tertiary level. In the same way, an apostle might write to Christian believers and refer to something like glossolalia without bothering to note whether this was part of their conversion experience or something separate.
How then will we read Romans 8:9? Or Ephesians 1:13? When people approach them from an Evangelical perspective, they may well assume they were written to those who had never spoken in tongues and therefore apply them in this way. When people approach them from a Pentecostal perspective, they may well assume they were written to those who had spoken in tongues and therefore apply them in this way.
What if these passages were written to people who spoke in tongues? The implications for Evangelicals are serious. The Evangelical approach might be like non-Christians reading the New Testament declarations about righteousness and then mistakenly applying them to their own lives. We must fulfil the conditions first.
This is the position taken by David Pawson, for example. He clearly sees Romans 8:9 as applying to people who have already had a charismatic experience. And it must be admitted that if we read the New Testament from this perspective, all the references to the Spirit become consistent. Our difficulty today is that there are millions of believers who have not spoken in tongues but who claim to know Christ and to be genuinely born again. There is no need to deny these claims. As we have seen, there is a distinction between being born of the Spirit and being empowered by the Spirit. But it is also plain that that the New Testament really does not assume such a distinction, and we need to be careful lest we claim more than we ought.
It is these fundamental assumptions we make when we approach the Bible which determine how we understand it and apply it. If we always wear the wrong tinted glasses, no matter how good they may be, we will always come up with the wrong perspective.
James Dunn’s comments on the New Testament church are very apt—
In Acts 19 Paul asks the so-called ‘disciples’ at Ephesus whether they received the Spirit when they took their step of commitment… As with all who claim to be disciples, he expects that they will know whether they have received the Spirit or not… As Leslie Newbiggin pointed out, Paul’s ‘modern successors are more inclined to ask either, “Did you believe exactly what we teach?” or “Were the hands that were laid on you our hands?” and—if the answer is satisfactory—to assure the converts that they have received the Holy Spirit even if they don’t know it. There is a world of difference between these two attitudes. There is indeed!
Those who hold the Evangelical position have to work hard to find a way around the Acts passages as they clearly portray a church where people first believed and then received the Spirit. Those who hold the Pentecostal/charismatic position have no such problem. The Acts passages clearly endorse it and the letters are consistent with it.
There are good and godly people who hold differing views about being baptised in the Holy Spirit. It is important to put aside all preconceived ideas and, as far as possible, take a position that we can hold in good conscience, regardless of previous experience, either positive or negative.
Whatever stance we take, one thing is clear. We must be Spirit-filled (Ephesians 5:18). Of that there is no doubt. And we dare not rest until we know we are.

        Want to read more by Barry Chant?

Easy. Just go to and browse around. There is something for everyone – Bible studies, children’s stories, articles, devotional materials, poems, short stories, Christian resources, pioneer Pentecostal research and more. And mostly it’s free.

Bingham, G., Spirit-Baptism: Spirit-Living, Blackwood: New Creation, 1978
Bittlinger, A., Gifts and Graces London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967
Burgess, S., and Van Der Maas, E. M., (eds), The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, revised and expanded edition, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001
Chant, B., Empowered by the Spirit Miranda: Tabor, 2008
Chant, B., Spirit of Pentecost: the origins and development of the Pentecostal Movement in Australia, 1870-1939, unpublished PhD thesis, Macquarie University 1999
Chant, B., Your Guide to God’s Power Tonbridge: Sovereign world, 1986
Chant, Barry, Praying in the Spirit Tonbridge: Sovereign World, 2002
Chant, K., Clothed with Power Kingswood, NSW: Vision Christian College, 1997
Christenson, L., Welcome, Holy Spirit Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987
Dunn, James, Baptism in the Holy Spirit London: SCM, 1970
Fee, G., God’s Empowering Presence Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994
Fife, E., The Holy Spirit, the Bible and Common Sense, Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1980
Graham, Billy, The Holy Spirit London: Collins, 1979
Green, M., I Believe in the Holy Spirit London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975
Horton, H., The Gifts of the Spirit Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, (1934), 1975
James Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975
Lederle, H., Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of ‘Spirit-Baptism’ in the Charismatic Renewal Movement Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1988
Packer, J., Keep in Step with the Spirit Leicester: IVP, 1984
Pawson, D., Jesus Baptises in One Holy Spirit London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1997
Pennicook, I., Jesus, the Man of the Spirit, study paper, 14 July 2002.
Smith, Ken, Charismatic Distinctives Wyee: published by the author, 1999
Stott, J., Baptism & Fullness: The Work of the Spirit Today Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1964
Stott, John, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975
Synan, V., The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1979), 1989
Waugh, G., Living in the Spirit Melbourne: Joint Board of Christian Education, 1987
Wimber, J., Power Evangelism London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1986

Barry Chant

Written by

Barry Chant is a regular speaker at church services, seminars, conferences and conventions. Hundreds of thousands of his books have been sold around the world. He has degrees in arts, theology and ministry, a diploma in education and a PhD in history. He was the co-founder and former president of Tabor College, Australia.

Terms of Use

You are free to download and reproduce written material on this website for personal use or for free distribution to groups such as your local church Bible study group or Christian fellowship. Please include the following acknowledgement: ‘Copyright © Barry Chant. Reproduced with permission from’

I'd love to get your thoughts on this...