Yes, we see that at the household of Cornelius an event very similar to what happened at Pentecost. Peter understood this as a sign from God that what established at Pentecost--the going forth of the Gospel ("You shall be My witnesses...")--was intended to include the Gentiles. Up until then the focus had been on Jews and Samaritans, but God made it clear to Peter that this was meant for Gentiles also. God gives Peter a vision, someone then asks Peter to go preach at this Gentile household, and when he does he witnesses the same kind of thing happen there that happened with them on Pentecost.
Now here's something to pay attention to. Did you notice that event though the laying on of hands for the reception of the Spirit for the Samaritans is mentioned between these two events, there's no pouring out of the Spirit like there was on Pentecost or Cornelius' house.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is attached to what happened on Pentecost, the pouring out of the Spirit. And then Peter links that also with what happened at Cornelius' household.
Elsewhere we see that people are baptized and have hands laid on them. But the laying on of hands is NOT called "baptism with the Holy Spirit".
That's why I said pay attention to what is NOT called "baptism with the Holy Spirit". This phrase is connected only to an outpouring of the Spirit, what happened at Pentecost. And what happened at Cornelius' household is brought into this by the connection it has with Pentecost.
But the laying on of hands among the Samaritans? Not baptism with the Holy Spirit.
The laying on of hands with the disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19? Not baptism with the Holy Spirit.
That's important.
-CryptoLUtheran
Hello,
I wish I had more time to expand upon my answer to your above point, but this answer will have to suffice for now.
To make those statements ignores Scriptural context, synonymy, principles of biblical word studies, authorial intent, and logic and places one's focus on a metaphor and not on what the metaphor represents.
1. Ignoring the Context: Contextually, Scripture demonstrates that the term "
baptism with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 15) is co-equal (synonymous) with the
promise of the Father (Acts 1:4), which is a time when the Holy Spirit
comes upon His People (Acts 1:8),
filling them (Acts 2:4), because He is being
poured out (Acts 2:17) and
shed forth (Acts 2:33) upon them. Peter calls this same event receiving the
Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), which is speaking of the time that the Holy Spirit would no longer be
WITH the disciples but be
IN (indwell) them (John 14:17). In fact, Peter himself exchanged the phrase "
baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:16) for "
gift" of the Spirit" (Acts 11:17) and the "
Holy Spirit fell on them" (Acts 11:15), which Luke recorded as "
the Holy Spirit fell" (Acts 10:44), "
the Gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out" (Acts 10:45), and they "
received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10:47).
2. Ignoring Synonymy: Your view fails to recognize contextual synonymy. "baptized in the Holy Spirit" is not an absolute synonym. Absolute synonyms are substitutable in all possible contexts (semantic, grammatical, sociolinguistic) ways. This term is not being used as an absolute synonym in these texts. However, it is being used as a contextual synonym. The author uses the term "baptized in the Holy Spirit" as a semantic overlap of the synonymous terms I have mentioned to bring out the rich, dynamic meaning of what occurs when one receives the Gift of the Holy Spirit. The problem, linguistically and hermeneutically speaking, with your position (which dramatically affects exegesis) is that it is virtually impossible to have a contextual synonym also be understood as a monosemic term. A word cannot be monosemic and synonymic at the same time. It is linguistically - impossible.
This perspective does not come from a solid exegetical analysis but may be derived from some pre-suppositionally held systematic theology. If one were to embrace the methodology you are presenting, one could argue the same idea for all the terms I listed. Since each term has unique components, it would be easy to make theological distinctions that the other words do not possess. However, the linguistic principle of synonymy and monosemy make it impossible to create a sub-definition that ignores the synonymous overlaps of all terms employed in the context.
The synonymy is too apparent to ignore. Not only does Scripture use all of these terms synonymously, but Jesus Himself also teaches that Baptism with the Holy Spirit is synonymous with everything He said about the coming of the Holy Spirit or the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Notice what Scripture reveals about all of these terms.
3. Jesus Disagrees: The interpretation you presented disagrees with Jesus Himself. Jesus links the term "baptism with the Holy Spirit" through a direct antecedent to the term "Promise of the Father," which He further links to His statements about the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:4-5 KJV And, being assembled with
them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for
the promise of the Father, which,
saith he, ye have heard of me. (5) For John indeed baptized with water, but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
A. What is the promise of the Father? The Holy Spirit. Compare Act 2:33 KJV: Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
B. When did we hear about this promise? See John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-13. [NOTE: Nowhere did Jesus mention "baptism with the Holy Spirit."
C. Jesus refers to the promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit Himself, as the same thing as the "baptism with the Holy Spirit."
D. Jesus also calls this time of the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" a time that the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples:
Acts 1:8 KJV: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost comes upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
It should be noted that Acts 19 is tied in synonymic terms with the words of Jesus: Acts 19:5-6: When they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them,
the Holy Ghost came on them; they spake with tongues and prophesied.
4. Acts 8 synonymy connection: You said,
"Now, here's something to pay attention to. Did you notice that even though the laying on of hands for the reception of the Spirit for the Samaritans is mentioned between these two events, there's no pouring out of the Spirit like there was on Pentecost or Cornelius' house."
Exegetically, since there is so much synonymy contained within the contexts of Acts 2 and 10 and the words of Jesus, the only way one could argue the point that you are contending for is if one could prove that Acts 8, 9, and 19 have 1) have NO synonymy to any of terms being used in Acts 1, 2, and 10, 2) that the term "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is a terminus technicus, 3) that the term "baptism with the Holy Spirit" should be used as a monosemic word, 4) that metaphors take the place of what the represent.
A. Acts 8 text: Notice that Peter and John went to the Samaritans that they might "
receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:16), and after they laid their hands on them, they also "
received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:17), which Peter also called "
the gift of God" (Acts 8:20).
These terms agree with Jesus in Acts 1:4-5 when Jesus refers to receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit, the
baptism with the Holy Spirit. They agree with Peter when he calls what took place with the Apostles as receiving the
Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and when he calls what took place with Cornelius "
the Gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out" (Acts 10:45), and they "
received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10:47).
Acts 1, 2, 8, and 10 are in perfect harmony. To claim otherwise is eisegesis.
B. Acts 9 text: Notice how Saul, later called Paul, was
baptized with the Holy Spirit if biblical synonymy means anything. Scripture tells us that Ananias laid his hands on Saul to "
be filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 9:17). Where else have we seen these words used?
When the apostles received the Gift of the Holy Spirit, it was the time when the Holy Spirit was
"filling them" (Acts 2:4), which is also called the
promise of the Father (Acts 1:4) is called being
baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), which is a time when the Holy Spirit
comes upon His People (Acts 1:8), because He is being
poured out (Acts 2:17) and
shed forth (Acts 2:33) upon them. Peter calls this same event receiving the
Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Since the term "
filling" (Acts 2:4) is synonymous with receiving the "
Gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), it is synonymous with one being "
baptized with the Holy Spirit."
The irony of the argument that you are making is the fact that the term "Gift of God" (Acts 8:20) is only used one time to refer to receiving the Holy Spirit. I am surprised you didn't attempt to turn that term into some weird stand-alone word that means something different than all the connected synonyms.
C. Acts 19 text: Act 19:2: He said unto them, Have ye
received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. Act 19:5-6: When they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them,
the Holy Ghost came on them; they spake with tongues and prophesied.
Here Scripture ties in "received the Holy Spirit" in verse 2 with when the Holy Spirit "came on them" in verse 6. Notice that Jesus which is a time when the Holy Spirit
comes upon His People (Acts 1:8), the "
Holy Spirit fell on them" (Acts 11:15), which Luke recorded as "
the Holy Spirit fell" (Acts 10:44), "
received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10:47),
5. False Assumptions about Technical Meanings: This Word Study Fallacy is when someone uses a term like "
baptism with the Spirit" as a
terminus technicus, a belief that the term always has the same meaning. The evidence does not support that linguistically, contextually, or scripturally. The way that you are using this term is used as an example of an exegetical fallacy in the book
Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson. I suggest everyone get that book (I get no royalties. It is just that good).
6. Authorial Intent: I will not go into much explanation here but say that Luke does not emphasize the metaphor "baptism with the Holy Spirit." Luke emphasizes what the metaphor points to – mainly, the Gift-Indwelling of the Holy Spirit Himself.
7. The Continuation Issue: Was the baptism with the Holy Spirit to be a first-century event alone? No. That idea flies in the face of Scripture. First,
A. The idea of a once-for-all baptism in the Spirit at Pentecost and with Cornelius violates the Greek grammar of John 1:33:
John the Baptist said, "… he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who
baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'"
The word for
baptizes in this verse is
βαπτιζων. This word is a Present Active Participle that indicates a
continuing action, "the one baptizing in the Holy Spirit." This agrees with the tenor of the entire New Testament on this subject – especially if one understands that this term is a metaphoric term for a specific experience available for all believers—mainly the Indwelling Gift of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not stop baptizing in the Holy Spirit.
B. The promised Gift of the Holy Spirit is trans-generational:
Act 2:38-39 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you and your children, and all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
