William Lane Craig vs. Pentecostals & Charismatics on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit

[TruthSeek3r]

From Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 5): The Baptism In the Holy Spirit:

Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit

Today we want to look at the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit. There’s a great deal of confusion in Protestant circles concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit because certain Pentecostal and charismatic Christians claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace in the life of the believer which brings one into a fuller and deeper experience of the Holy Spirit. They believe that when a person becomes a Christian he is indwelt by the Spirit but he is not baptized in the Holy Spirit. In order to come into this deeper walk with God you need to have a second work of grace – a second experience of the Holy Spirit – called the baptism of the Holy Spirit often accompanied by speaking in tongues which will initiate you into this deeper walk in the Spirit.

I think this view is completely wrong. It seems to me that the Scripture is relatively clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a second work of grace, but it is an initiatory work of the Spirit by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that we are indwelt by the Spirit and made to be members of the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 seems to make that clear: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the universal experience of the church, the initiating act by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ.

Charismatics will usually appeal to the stories in the book of Acts to show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not an initiatory act but is a second work of grace. But, in fact, a close examination of those stories in the book of Acts reveals that in every single case it is clearly an initial experience of the Holy Spirit that is being described and not a second experience. For example, in Acts 2 you have the story of Pentecost where the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to the church in Jerusalem and Judea. This is an initial baptism in the Holy Spirit that they were to wait for. They were not to leave Jerusalem until they received this baptism in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 8 you have the story of how the Holy Spirit is given to the Samaritan believers. Again, a close reading of chapter 8 indicates that they did not have the Holy Spirit until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 10 and 11 you have the story of Cornelius and his household in which the Holy Spirit now is given to the Gentiles. And once again this is clearly an initial act of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Cornelius and his household. Peter says that the Holy Spirit fell upon them in the same way that he did upon us at Pentecost in the beginning. Then in Acts 19 you have this very strange story of the Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist whom Paul runs into and who says we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul then baptizes them into the Holy Spirit and they likewise become Christians.

So, although the baptism of the Holy Spirit in these acts is differently related to water baptism (sometimes preceding it; sometimes actually coming after water baptism), nevertheless it is clear that in every case the persons who experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit are experiencing an initial act of the Holy Spirit and not some sort of secondary act of grace which puts them into a deeper walk with Christ.​

From Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 6): The Filling of the Holy Spirit:

Why Are So Many Christians Not Filled With the Holy Spirit?

Last time we saw that there is a difference in the New Testament drawn between Christians who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit. All Christians have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and are therefore indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But as we saw in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3, Paul says that although all Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit some Christians still are living under the domination and influence of the flesh, that is to say the fallen human nature, and therefore do not produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Instead these Christians exhibit the works of the flesh that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5.

We saw that the signs of the Spirit-filled life are not charismatic gifts like speaking in tongues or prophetic utterance or working of healing miracles. The church in Corinth exhibited all sorts of charismatic gifts and yet was one of the most carnal churches in the New Testament. Rather, the evidence of the Spirit-filled life is the fruit of the Spirit that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5. Those who are walking in the Holy Spirit, who are filled with the Spirit, produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives rather than the works of the flesh.

The question that I left us with is this: why is it that so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit? Why is it that so many Christians seem to fall into that category of carnal Christians – Christians who are still living under the domination and influence of the fallen human nature? Why do so few seem to enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Let me suggest two reasons as to why so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit.

[...]​

Question: Is William Lane Craig right? Are Pentecostals & Charismatics right? Who is right?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

From Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 5): The Baptism In the Holy Spirit:

Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit

Today we want to look at the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit. There’s a great deal of confusion in Protestant circles concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit because certain Pentecostal and charismatic Christians claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace in the life of the believer which brings one into a fuller and deeper experience of the Holy Spirit. They believe that when a person becomes a Christian he is indwelt by the Spirit but he is not baptized in the Holy Spirit. In order to come into this deeper walk with God you need to have a second work of grace – a second experience of the Holy Spirit – called the baptism of the Holy Spirit often accompanied by speaking in tongues which will initiate you into this deeper walk in the Spirit.

I think this view is completely wrong. It seems to me that the Scripture is relatively clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a second work of grace, but it is an initiatory work of the Spirit by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that we are indwelt by the Spirit and made to be members of the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 seems to make that clear: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the universal experience of the church, the initiating act by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ.

Charismatics will usually appeal to the stories in the book of Acts to show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not an initiatory act but is a second work of grace. But, in fact, a close examination of those stories in the book of Acts reveals that in every single case it is clearly an initial experience of the Holy Spirit that is being described and not a second experience. For example, in Acts 2 you have the story of Pentecost where the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to the church in Jerusalem and Judea. This is an initial baptism in the Holy Spirit that they were to wait for. They were not to leave Jerusalem until they received this baptism in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 8 you have the story of how the Holy Spirit is given to the Samaritan believers. Again, a close reading of chapter 8 indicates that they did not have the Holy Spirit until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 10 and 11 you have the story of Cornelius and his household in which the Holy Spirit now is given to the Gentiles. And once again this is clearly an initial act of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Cornelius and his household. Peter says that the Holy Spirit fell upon them in the same way that he did upon us at Pentecost in the beginning. Then in Acts 19 you have this very strange story of the Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist whom Paul runs into and who says we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul then baptizes them into the Holy Spirit and they likewise become Christians.

So, although the baptism of the Holy Spirit in these acts is differently related to water baptism (sometimes preceding it; sometimes actually coming after water baptism), nevertheless it is clear that in every case the persons who experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit are experiencing an initial act of the Holy Spirit and not some sort of secondary act of grace which puts them into a deeper walk with Christ.​

From Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 6): The Filling of the Holy Spirit:

Why Are So Many Christians Not Filled With the Holy Spirit?

Last time we saw that there is a difference in the New Testament drawn between Christians who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit. All Christians have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and are therefore indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But as we saw in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3, Paul says that although all Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit some Christians still are living under the domination and influence of the flesh, that is to say the fallen human nature, and therefore do not produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Instead these Christians exhibit the works of the flesh that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5.

We saw that the signs of the Spirit-filled life are not charismatic gifts like speaking in tongues or prophetic utterance or working of healing miracles. The church in Corinth exhibited all sorts of charismatic gifts and yet was one of the most carnal churches in the New Testament. Rather, the evidence of the Spirit-filled life is the fruit of the Spirit that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5. Those who are walking in the Holy Spirit, who are filled with the Spirit, produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives rather than the works of the flesh.

The question that I left us with is this: why is it that so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit? Why is it that so many Christians seem to fall into that category of carnal Christians – Christians who are still living under the domination and influence of the fallen human nature? Why do so few seem to enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Let me suggest two reasons as to why so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit.

[...]​

Question: Is William Lane Craig right? Are Pentecostals & Charismatics right? Who is right?

I am a Charismatic and do not believe the indwelling of His Holy Spirit is a secondary work. A deeper walk comes with obedience through His Holy Spirit rather than " quenching " Him. We can believe but beyond that we follow, stay the course. This is how the Holy Spirit works in our life. Tongues are a gift not a path towards santification.
This is uniquely Pentecostal because they insist tongues is the evidence, unfortunately. This is why there is a huge movement towards cessation, also unfortunate.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

There's a couple of issues with this though that the author here would have to define.

In John 20:22 Jesus speaks to the Apostles.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jn 20:22.

Receive the Holy Spirit, after breathing on them. This harkens back to Genesis in the creation of man. God breathed life into Adam and he became a living being. The Apostles were breathed into and I feel (and other high profile ministers as well, such as Derek Prince feel) that this was when the Apostles were indwellt by the Holy Spirit. Where came and sealed them.

While the text doesn't specifically say that they received, it does strongly imply it in that Jesus breathed the Spirit on them. The breath of life.

Then in Acts 2, they received a second work of the Holy Spirit, when Jesus poured out (Acts 2:33) the Holy Spirit.

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ac 2:33.

What you are seeing and hearing.

John 20
Jesus is present on earth
Jesus breaths the Holy Spirit
No outward manifestations

Acts 2
Jesus has ascended to Heaven
Jesus pours out the Holy Spirit
Tongues and other visible gifts/signs

These are not the same account, and yet it is the Holy Spirit in both instances.

But wait there is another instance in the scripture that speaks of this in part.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ac 8:14–17.

The Samaritan believers had repented and been baptized in the name of Jesus. Baptism is when you receive the indwelling of the Spirit (Titus 3:5, John 3:3-5). But the Apostles went and ministered a second work of the Holy Spirit to them. So much so that even Simon the Magician saw the Spirit manifest and offered money to have that power too!

18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ac 8:18–19.

So I'm sorry, this author in the OP might be very knowledgable but it doesn't line up with scripture.

It doesn't mean that it happens like this in every single instance. The waiting that is. There are accounts in scripture where people are baptized and receive baptism of the Holy Spirit right away (Acts 19), there are other accounts where they receive the Holy Spirit first before they are even baptized (Acts 10)

What's important to remember is God wants us to have the indwelling influence of the Holy Spirit to guide and lead us. But He also wants us to have the outpouring baptism of the Holy Spirit to equip us and empower us to do his work.

 

[swordsman1]

From Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 5): The Baptism In the Holy Spirit:

Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit

Today we want to look at the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit. There’s a great deal of confusion in Protestant circles concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit because certain Pentecostal and charismatic Christians claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace in the life of the believer which brings one into a fuller and deeper experience of the Holy Spirit. They believe that when a person becomes a Christian he is indwelt by the Spirit but he is not baptized in the Holy Spirit. In order to come into this deeper walk with God you need to have a second work of grace – a second experience of the Holy Spirit – called the baptism of the Holy Spirit often accompanied by speaking in tongues which will initiate you into this deeper walk in the Spirit.

I think this view is completely wrong. It seems to me that the Scripture is relatively clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a second work of grace, but it is an initiatory work of the Spirit by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that we are indwelt by the Spirit and made to be members of the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 seems to make that clear: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the universal experience of the church, the initiating act by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ.

Charismatics will usually appeal to the stories in the book of Acts to show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not an initiatory act but is a second work of grace. But, in fact, a close examination of those stories in the book of Acts reveals that in every single case it is clearly an initial experience of the Holy Spirit that is being described and not a second experience. For example, in Acts 2 you have the story of Pentecost where the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to the church in Jerusalem and Judea. This is an initial baptism in the Holy Spirit that they were to wait for. They were not to leave Jerusalem until they received this baptism in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 8 you have the story of how the Holy Spirit is given to the Samaritan believers. Again, a close reading of chapter 8 indicates that they did not have the Holy Spirit until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 10 and 11 you have the story of Cornelius and his household in which the Holy Spirit now is given to the Gentiles. And once again this is clearly an initial act of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Cornelius and his household. Peter says that the Holy Spirit fell upon them in the same way that he did upon us at Pentecost in the beginning. Then in Acts 19 you have this very strange story of the Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist whom Paul runs into and who says we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul then baptizes them into the Holy Spirit and they likewise become Christians.

So, although the baptism of the Holy Spirit in these acts is differently related to water baptism (sometimes preceding it; sometimes actually coming after water baptism), nevertheless it is clear that in every case the persons who experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit are experiencing an initial act of the Holy Spirit and not some sort of secondary act of grace which puts them into a deeper walk with Christ.​

From Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 6): The Filling of the Holy Spirit:

Why Are So Many Christians Not Filled With the Holy Spirit?

Last time we saw that there is a difference in the New Testament drawn between Christians who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit. All Christians have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and are therefore indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But as we saw in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3, Paul says that although all Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit some Christians still are living under the domination and influence of the flesh, that is to say the fallen human nature, and therefore do not produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Instead these Christians exhibit the works of the flesh that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5.

We saw that the signs of the Spirit-filled life are not charismatic gifts like speaking in tongues or prophetic utterance or working of healing miracles. The church in Corinth exhibited all sorts of charismatic gifts and yet was one of the most carnal churches in the New Testament. Rather, the evidence of the Spirit-filled life is the fruit of the Spirit that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5. Those who are walking in the Holy Spirit, who are filled with the Spirit, produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives rather than the works of the flesh.

The question that I left us with is this: why is it that so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit? Why is it that so many Christians seem to fall into that category of carnal Christians – Christians who are still living under the domination and influence of the fallen human nature? Why do so few seem to enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Let me suggest two reasons as to why so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit.

[...]​

Question: Is William Lane Craig right? Are Pentecostals & Charismatics right? Who is right?

William Lane Craig is correct, Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at conversion. The idea of it being a secondary experience is old school Pentecostal teaching which has been widely refuted by bible scholars including Pentecostalism's own chief theologian Gordon Fee, as well as the most respected charismatic theologian Wayne Grudem.

I can quote expositions from them both if needed.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I can quote expositions from them both if needed.

By all means.

 

[frank sears]

When Jesus told the apostles to receive the Spirit, Thomas was not there, so guess he missed out. I believe Jesus was leaving the Spirit with the apostles until they would later be indwelt by the Spirit. Our example is the very first church, the five thousand, they only received the Spirit ONCE. God did a special work with the half Jews and gentiles to convince the Jewish Christians that they to could be saved, that was all that was for. Just think, does it really seem reasonable to ask a Spirit indwelt believer if he wants the Spirit? In all the instruction letters sent to the churches no one ever told a christian to seek to be baptized in the Spirit.

 

[swordsman1]

Gordon Fee - Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics

The question of a baptism in the Holy Spirit distinct from and subsequent to conversion remains a thorny one. In the first place, the Pentecostal has indeed experienced such a "baptism," and for him or her it has had a dynamic quality similar to the life in the Spirit one finds in the Acts. But apart from the analogies of Jesus and the apostles (ruled out as ultimately irrelevant), the Pentecostal's biblical support for this baptism as "subsequent to and distinct from" rests on the "pattern" of Samaria (two weeks?) , Paul (three days), and Ephesus (several minutes?). When faced with the Cornelius episode, the Pentecostal has argued either that Cornelius was already a Christian as a god-fearer (surely a case of special pleading) or that "this visitation was God's ideal, his perfect pattern: believe Christ, receive the Holy Spirit in immediate succession.

The Pentecostal's strongest case is the episode at Samaria (Acts 8), but whether Luke intended to imply an experience "distinct from" conversion is debatable. Some indeed have argued against the Pentecostals (weakly, it seems to me) that the Samaritans were not even Christians until the advent of the Spirit ( 18:17). However, there are too many terms denoting Christian experience prior to verse 17 to give this view much support. Such terms as " [they] with one accord gave heed to what was said" (v. 6), had "much joy" (v. 8), "believed Philip as he preached the good news" (v. 12), "were baptized" (v. 12), and "had received the word of God" (v. 14) are used elsewhere by Luke to describe the Christian experience of conversion. To argue on the basis of Romans 8: 1-17 that they do not do so here seems also to be a case of special pleading. Luke surely intended to be describing believers.

Yet the Holy Spirit "had not yet fallen on them" (v. 16). Is Luke thereby intending to teach "distinct from and subsequent to"'? Probably not. It is furthermore questionable whether he is teaching it incidentally-at least the notion that a baptism in the Spirit is distinct from conversion. In a carefully argued exegetical study of all relevant passages in Acts, Dunn concluded that for Luke the real evidence (and chief element) of Christian experience was the presence of the Spirit. What seems to be important for Luke in this narrative is that the validation (and completion) of the Christian experience in the initial spread beyond Jerusalem is tied to the Jerusalem church and signified by a dynamic quality similar to theirs. If this is a correct understanding of Luke's concern, and it surely is defensible exegesis, then the concept of subsequence is irrelevant. What is of consequence is the experiential, dynamic quality of the gift of the Spirit.

If, however, a baptism in the Spirit "distinct from and subsequent to" is neither clearly taught in the New Testament nor necessarily to be seen as a normative pattern (let alone the only pattern) for Christian experience, there is a pattern in Acts which may be derived only from historical precedent by the intent of Luke and Paul.

It would seem from any valid reading of Luke and Paul that the gift of the Spirit was not some sort of adjunct to Christian experience, nor was it some kind of second and more significant part of Christian experience. It was rather the chief element of Christian life, from beginning to end. Everywhere for Luke it is the presence of the Spirit that signifies the "real thing." And Paul asks the Galatians as to their Christian experience, "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" (Gal 3:2). Furthermore, in Acts the recurring pattern of the coming (or presence) of the Spirit has a dramatic, or dynamic, element to it. It was experienced, or to use contemporary parlance, it was very often charismatic in nature.
...
Moreover, in the case of the three narratives of Acts, there are some exegetical concerns as well, as to whether they intend what Pentecostals see in them. For example, it is extremely unlikely, despite his use of mathetai to describe them, that Luke intended us to see the people in Acts 19 as Christians in any real sense, especially since they knew nothing of the coming of the Spirit, the sine qua non of truly Christian experience, and since they received Christian baptism at this point, implying that their previous baptism was not Christian.

The narratives of the Samaritan's and Paul's conversions do indeed reflect the coming of the Spirit as subsequent to what appears to be the actual experience of conversion. But the problems here are several. In the Samaritan case, for example, Luke actually says the Spirit does not come on them until the laying on of the apostles' hands. In order to square this with Paul's statement in Romans 8, James Dunn has argued that Luke does not consider them to be genuine believers before that.7 But that seems to run aground on the rest of linguistic evidence used to describe them prior to the laying on of hands, all of which is Lukan language for Christian conversion.8 Indeed the resolution to this tension is most likely to be found at the linguistic level. One simply must not press Luke's phenomenological use of Spirit language into service for theological precision. Although Luke says otherwise, we may assume the Samaritans and Paul to have become believers in the Pauline sense-that without the Spirit they are none of his. For Luke, however, the phenomenological expressions of the Spirit's presence are what he describes as the "coming of" or "filling with" the Spirit.

Thus in the case of Samaria, the Pentecostals do seem to have a biblical precedent, both for subsequence and, almost certainly, for tongues as evidence. But is this single precedent the intended divine pattern, or is it. as most New Testament scholars think, a unique event in the early history? And in any case, why does it serve as a better precedent than Cornelius or Ephesus?

In thus arguing, as a New Testament scholar, against some cherished Pentecostal interpretations, I have in no sense abandoned what is essential to Pentecostalism. I have only tried to point out some inherent flaws in some of our historic understanding of texts.

Gordon Fee - The First Epistle to the Corinthians

Some have argued for "Spirit baptism," by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term, nor clearly point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion, but on their common reception of the Spirit.

Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4-5).

If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase "in the Spirit" is most likely locative, expressing the "element" in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with "baptize' imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing), but it always refers to the element "in which" one is baptized.

In this sentence the goal of their common "immersion" in the one Spirit is "into/unto one body." The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized "into" the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like "baptize' this preposition most often has the sense of "movement toward so as to be in. In the present case the idea of "goal" seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that we be formed into one body. Hence, "we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body." This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.

To emphasize that the many ("we all") have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free." As in 7:17-24, these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture-race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.

 

[swordsman1]

Wayne Grudem - Systematic Theology

Baptism in and Filling with the Holy Spirit

Should we seek a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” after conversion? What does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit?

Systematic theology books have not traditionally included a chapter on baptism in the Holy Spirit or filling with the Holy Spirit as part of the study of the “order of salvation,” the study of the various steps in which the benefits of salvation are applied to our lives.1 But with the spread of Pentecostalism that began in 1901, the widespread influence of the charismatic movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the remarkable growth of Pentecostal and charismatic churches worldwide from 1970 to the present, the question of a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” distinct p 764 from regeneration has come into increasing prominence. I have put this chapter at this point in our study of the application of redemption for two reasons: (1) A proper understanding of this question must assume an understanding of regeneration, adoption, and sanctification, all of which have been discussed in previous chapters. (2) All the previous chapters on the application of redemption have discussed events that occur (or in the case of sanctification, that begin) at the point at which a person becomes a Christian. But this question concerns an event that occurs either at the point of conversion (according to one view) or sometime after conversion (according to another view). Moreover, people on both sides of the question agree that some kind of second experience has happened to many people after their conversion, and therefore one very important question is how to understand this experience in the light of Scripture and what scriptural categories properly apply to it.

EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS

A. The Traditional Pentecostal Understanding

The topic of this chapter has become important today because many Christians say that they have experienced a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” that came after they became Christians and that brought great blessing in their lives. They claim that prayer and Bible study have become much more meaningful and effective, that they have discovered new joy in worship, and they often say that they have received new spiritual gifts (especially, and most frequently, the gift of speaking in tongues).
This traditional Pentecostal or charismatic position is supported from Scripture in the following way:

(1) Jesus’ disciples were born-again believers long before the day of Pentecost, perhaps during Jesus’ life and ministry, but certainly by the time that Jesus, after his resurrection, “breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” ’ (John 20:22).

(2) Jesus nevertheless commanded his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4), telling them, “Before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). He told them, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). The disciples then obeyed Jesus’ command and waited in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit to come upon them so that they would receive new empowering for witness and ministry.

(3) When the disciples had waited for ten days, the day of Pentecost came, tongues of fire rested above their heads, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). This clearly shows that they received a baptism in (or with)3 the Holy Spirit. Although the disciples were born again long before Pentecost, at Pentecost they received a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5 and 11:16 refer to it this way) that was subsequent to conversion and resulted in great empowering for ministry as well as speaking in tongues.4

(4) Christians today, like the apostles, should ask Jesus for a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and thus follow the pattern of the disciples’ lives.5 If we receive this baptism in the Holy Spirit, it will result in much more power for ministry for our own lives, just as it did in the lives of the disciples, and will often (or always, according to some teachers) result in speaking in tongues as well.

(5) Support for this pattern—in which people are first born again and then later are baptized in the Holy Spirit—is seen in several other instances in the book of Acts. It is seen, for example, in Acts 8, where the people of Samaria first became Christians when they “believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), but only later received the Holy Spirit when the apostles Peter and John came from Jerusalem and prayed for them (Acts 8:14–17).6
Another example is found in Acts 19, where Paul came and found “some disciples” at Ephesus (Acts 19:1). But, “when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:6).

All of these examples (Acts 2, 8, sometimes 10, and 19) are cited by Pentecostals in order to show that a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” subsequent to conversion was a very common occurrence for New Testament Christians. Therefore, they reason, if it was common for Christians in Acts to have this second experience sometime after conversion, should it not be common for us today as well?
We can analyze this issue of the baptism in the Holy Spirit by asking three questions: (1) What does the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” mean in the New Testament? (2) How should we understand the “second experiences” that came to born-again believers in the book of Acts? (3) Are there other biblical expressions, such as “filling with the Holy Spirit,” that are better suited to describe an empowering with the Holy Spirit that comes after conversion?

 

[swordsman1]

cont..

B. What Does “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” Mean in the New Testament?

There are only seven passages in the New Testament where we read of someone being baptized in the Holy Spirit. (The English translations quoted here use the word with rather than in.)8 The seven passages follow:

In the first four verses, John the Baptist is speaking of Jesus and predicting that he will baptize people in (or with) the Holy Spirit:

Matthew 3:11: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

Mark 1:8: “I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Luke 3:16: “I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

John 1:33: “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.” ’

It is hard to draw any conclusions from these four passages with respect to what baptism with the Holy Spirit really is. We discover that Jesus is the one who will carry out this baptism and he will baptize his followers. But no further specification of this baptism is given.

The next two passages refer directly to Pentecost:

Acts 1:5: [Here Jesus says,] “John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 11:16: [Here Peter refers back to the same words of Jesus that were quoted in the previous verse. He says,] “I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’”

These two passages show us that whatever we may understand baptism in the Holy Spirit to be, it certainly happened at the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit fell in great power on the disciples and those with them, and they spoke in other tongues, and about three thousand people were converted (Acts 2:14).

It is important to realize that all six of these verses use almost exactly the same expression in Greek, with the only differences being some variation in word order or verb tense to fit the sentence, and with one example having the preposition understood rather than expressed explicitly.9

The only remaining reference in the New Testament is in the Pauline epistles:

1 Corinthians 12:13 (NIV mg): “For we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”

Now the question is whether 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to the same activity as these other six verses. In many English translations it appears to be different, for many translations are similar to the RSV, which says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Those who support the Pentecostal view of baptism in the Holy Spirit after conversion are quite eager to see this verse as referring to something other than baptism in the Holy Spirit, and they frequently emphasize the difference that comes out in the English translations. In all the other six verses, Jesus is the one who baptizes people and the Holy Spirit is the “element” (parallel to water in physical baptism) in which or with which Jesus baptizes people. But here in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (so the Pentecostal explanation goes) we have something quite different—here the person doing the baptizing is not Jesus but the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they say, 1 Corinthians 12:13 should not be taken into account when we ask what the New Testament means by “baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

This point is very important to the Pentecostal position, because, if we admit that 1 Corinthians 12:13refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit, then it is very hard to maintain that it is an experience that comes after conversion. In this verse Paul says that this baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit made us members of the body of—“We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13 NIV mg). But if this really is a “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” the same as the event that was referred to in the previous six verses, then Paul is saying that it happened to all the Corinthians when they became members of the body of Christ; that is, when they became Christians. For it was that baptism that resulted in their being members of the body of Christ, the church. Such a conclusion would be very difficult for the Pentecostal position that holds that baptism in the Holy Spirit is something that occurs after conversion, not at the same time.

Is it possible to sustain the Pentecostal view that the other six verses refer to a baptism by Jesus in which he baptizes us in (or with) the Holy Spirit, but that 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to something different, to a baptism by the Holy Spirit? Although the distinction seems to make sense from some English translations, it really cannot be supported by an examination of the Greek text, for there the expression is almost identical to the expressions we have seen in the other six verses. Paul says ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ... ἐβαπτίσθημεν (“in one Spirit ... we were baptized”). Apart from one small difference (he refers to “one Spirit” rather than “the Holy Spirit”),10 all the other elements are the same: the verb is βαπτίζω (G966) and the prepositional phrase contains the same words (ἐν, G1877, plus the dative noun πνεύματι from πνεῦμα, G4460). If we translate this same Greek expression “baptize in the Holy Spirit” (or “baptize with the Holy Spirit”) in the other six New Testament occurrences where we find it, then it seems only proper that we translate it in the same way in this seventh occurrence. And no matter how we translate, it seems hard to deny that the original readers would have seen this phrase as referring to the same thing as the other six verses, because for them the words were the same.

But why have modern English translations translated this verse to say, “By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,” thus giving apparent support to the Pentecostal interpretation? We should first note that the NASB gives “in” as a marginal translation, and the NIV margin gives both “with” and “in” as alternatives. The reason these translations have chosen the word “by” has apparently been a desire to avoid an appearance of two locations for the baptism in the same sentence. The sentence already says that this baptism was “into one body,” and perhaps the translators thought it seemed awkward to say, “in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” But this should not be seen as a great difficulty, for Paul says, referring to the Israelites, “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2)—a very closely parallel expression where the cloud and the sea are the “elements” that surrounded or overwhelmed the people of Israel and Moses means the new life of participation in the Mosaic covenant and the fellowship of God’s people (led by Moses) that the Israelites found themselves in after they had passed through the cloud and the sea. It is not that there were two locations for the same baptism, but one was the element in which they were baptized and the other was the location in which they found themselves after the baptism. This is very similar to 1 Corinthians 12:13: the Holy Spirit was the element in which they were baptized, and the body of Christ, the church, was the location in which they found themselves after that baptism.11 It thus seems appropriate to conclude that 1 Corinthians 12:13 also refers to baptism “in” or “with” the Holy Spirit, and is referring to the same thing as the other six verses mentioned.

But this has a significant implication for us: it means that, as far as the apostle Paul was concerned, baptism in the Holy Spirit occurred at conversion. He says that all the Corinthians were baptized in the Holy Spirit and the result was that they became members of the body of Christ: “For we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13 NIV mg). “Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” therefore, must refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit at the beginning of the Christian life when he gives us new spiritual life (in regeneration) and cleanses us and gives a clear break with the power and love of sin (the initial stage of sanctification). In this way “baptism in the Holy Spirit” refers to all that the Holy Spirit does at the beginning of our Christian lives. But this means that it cannot refer to an experience after conversion, as the Pentecostal interpretation would have it.12

But how, then, do we understand the references to baptism in the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5 and 11:6, both of which refer to the day of Pentecost? Were these not instances where the disciples, having previously been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, now experienced a new empowering from the Holy Spirit that enabled them to minister effectively?

It is true that the disciples were “born again” long before Pentecost, and in fact probably long before Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. 13 Jesus had said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), but the disciples certainly had come to Jesus and had followed him (even though their understanding of who he was increased gradually over time). Certainly when Peter said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), it was evidence of some kind of regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in his heart. Jesus told him, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17). And Jesus had said to the Father regarding his disciples, “I have given them the words which you gave me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me ... I have guarded them and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:8, 12). The disciples had “little faith” (Matt. 8:26) at times, but they did have faith! Certainly they were regenerated long before the day of Pentecost.14

But we must realize that the day of Pentecost is much more than an individual event in the lives of Jesus’ disciples and those with them. The day of Pentecost was the point of transition between the old covenant work and ministry of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. Of course the Holy Spirit was at work throughout the Old Testament, hovering over the waters of the first day of creation (Gen. 1:2), empowering people for service to God and leadership and prophecy (Ex. 31:3; 35:31; Deut. 34:9; Judg. 14:6; 1 Sam. 16:13; Ps. 51:11, et al.). But during that time the work of the Holy Spirit in individual lives was, in general, a work of lesser power.

There are several indications of a less powerful and less extensive work of the Holy Spirit in the old covenant: the Holy Spirit only came to a few people with significant power for ministry (Num. 11:16–17, for example), but Moses longed for the day when the Holy Spirit would be poured out on all of God’s people: “Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:29). The equipping of the Holy Spirit for special ministries could be lost, as it was in the life of Saul (1 Sam. 16:14), and as David feared that it might be in his own life (Ps. 51:11). In terms of spiritual power in the lives of the people of God, there was little power over the dominion of Satan, resulting in very little effective evangelism of the nations around Israel, and no examples of ability to cast out demons.15 The old covenant work of the Holy Spirit was almost completely confined to the nation of Israel, but in the new covenant there is created a new “dwelling place of God” (Eph. 2:22), the church, which unites both Gentiles and Jews in the body of Christ.

Moreover, the Old Testament people of God looked forward to a “new covenant” age when the work of the Holy Spirit would be much more powerful and much more widespread (Num. 11:29; Jer. 31:31–33; Ezek. 36:26–27; Joel 2:28–29).16

When the New Testament opens, we see John the Baptist as the last of the Old Testament prophets. Jesus said, “Among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he ... all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come” (Matt. 11:11–14). John knew that he baptized with water, but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (John 3:16). John the Baptist, then, still was living in an “old covenant” experience of the working of the Holy Spirit.

In the life of Jesus, we first see the new covenant power of the Holy Spirit at work. The Holy Spirit descends on him at his baptism (Luke 3:21–22), and after p 771 his temptation Jesus “returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee” (Luke 4:14). Then we begin to see what this new covenant power of the Holy Spirit will look like, because Jesus casts out demons with a word, heals all who are brought to him, and teaches with authority that people had not heard before (see Luke 4:16–44, et al.).

The disciples, however, do not receive this full new covenant empowering for ministry until the Day of Pentecost, for Jesus tells them to wait in Jerusalem, and promises, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). This was a transition in the lives of the disciples as well (see John 7:39; 14:17; 16:7; Acts 2:16). The promise of Joel that the Holy Spirit would come in new covenant fullness was fulfilled (Acts 2:16) as Jesus returned to heaven and then was given authority to pour out the Holy Spirit in new fullness and power (Acts 2:33).

 

[swordsman1]

cont...

What was the result in the lives of the disciples? These believers, who had had an old-covenant less-powerful experience of the Holy Spirit in their lives, received on the Day of Pentecost a more-powerful new-covenant experience of the Holy Spirit working in their lives.17 They received much greater “power” (Acts 1:8), power for living the Christian life and for carrying out Christian ministry.
This new covenant power gave the disciples more effectiveness in their witness and their ministry (Acts 1:8; Eph. 4:8, 11–13), much greater power for victory over the influence of sin in the lives of all believers (note the emphasis on the power of Christ’s resurrection at work within us in Rom. 6:11–14; 8:13–14; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10), and power for victory over Satan and demonic forces that would attack believers (2 Cor. 10:3–4; Eph. 1:19–21; 6:10–18; 1 John 4:4). p 772 This new covenant power of the Holy Spirit also resulted in a wide and hitherto unknown distribution of gifts for ministry to all believers (Acts 2:16–18; 1 Cor. 12:7, 11; 1 Peter 4:10; cf. Num. 11:17, 24–29). These gifts also had corporate implications because they were intended not to be used individualistically but for the corporate building up of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:12). It also meant that the gospel was no longer effectively limited to the Jews only, but that all races and all nations would hear the gospel in power and would be united into the church, to the glory of God (Eph. 2:11–3:10).20 The Day of Pentecost was certainly a remarkable time of transition in the whole history of redemption as recorded in Scripture. It was a remarkable day in the history of the world, because on that day the Holy Spirit began to function among God’s people with new covenant power.

But this fact helps us understand what happened to the disciples at Pentecost. They received this remarkable new empowering from the Holy Spirit because they were living at the time of the transition between the old covenant work of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant work of the Holy Spirit. Though it was a “second experience” of the Holy Spirit, coming as it did long after their conversion, it is not to be taken as a pattern for us, for we are not living at a time of transition in the work of the Holy Spirit. In their case, believers with an old covenant empowering from the Holy Spirit became believers with a new covenant empowering from the Holy Spirit. But we today do not first become believers with a weaker, old covenant work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and wait until some later time to receive a new covenant work of the Holy Spirit. Rather, we are in the same position as those who became Christians in the church at Corinth: when we become p 773 Christians we are all “baptized in one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13)—just as the Corinthians were, and just as were the new believers in many churches who were converted when Paul traveled on his missionary journeys.

In conclusion, the disciples certainly did experience “a baptism in the Holy Spirit” after conversion on the Day of Pentecost, but this happened because they were living at a unique point in history, and this event in their lives is therefore not a pattern that we are to seek to imitate.

What shall we say about the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit”? It is a phrase that the New Testament authors use to speak of coming into the new covenant power of the Holy Spirit. It happened at Pentecost for the disciples, but it happened at conversion for the Corinthians and for us. It is not a phrase the New Testament authors would use to speak of any post-conversion experience of empowering by the Holy Spirit.

 

[swordsman1]

cont...

C. How Should We Understand the “Second Experiences” in Acts?

But even if we have correctly understood the experience of the disciples at Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2, are there not other examples of people who had a “second experience” of empowering of the Holy Spirit after conversion, such as those in Acts 8 (at Samaria), Acts 10 (Cornelius’ household), and Acts 19 (the Ephesian disciples)?

These are not really convincing examples to prove the Pentecostal doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit either. First, the expression “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not ordinarily used to refer to any of these events,22 and this should give us some hesitation in applying this phrase to them. But more importantly, a closer look at each case shows more clearly what was happening in these events.
In Acts 8:4–25 the Samaritan people “believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” and “they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). Some have argued that this was not genuine saving faith on the part of the Samaritans.23 However, there is no indication in the text that Philip had a deficient understanding of the gospel (he had been prominent in the Jerusalem church) or that Philip himself thought that their faith in Christ was inadequate, for he allowed them to be baptized (Acts 8:12).

A better understanding of this event would be that God, in his providence, sovereignly waited to give the new covenant empowering of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans directly through the hands of the apostles (Acts 8:14–17) 24 so that it might be evident to the highest leadership in the Jerusalem church that the Samaritans were not second-class citizens but full members of the church. This was important because of the historical animosity between Jews and Samaritans (“Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,” John 4:9), and because Jesus had specified that the spread of the gospel to Samaria would be the next major step after it had been preached in Jerusalem and the region of Judea that surrounded Jerusalem: “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Thus, the event in Acts 8 was a kind of “Samaritan Pentecost,” a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the people of Samaria, who were a mixed race of Jewish and Gentile ancestry, so that it might be evident to all that the full new covenant blessings and power of the Holy Spirit had come to this group of people as well, and were not confined to Jews only. Because this is a special event in the history of redemption, as the pattern of Acts 1:8 is worked out in the book of Acts, it is not a pattern for us to repeat today. It is simply part of the transition between the old covenant experience of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant experience of the Holy Spirit.

The situation in Acts 10 is less complicated, because it is not even clear that Cornelius was a genuine believer before Peter came and preached the gospel to him. Certainly he had not trusted in Christ for salvation. He is rather a Gentile who was one of the first examples of the way in which the gospel would go “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).25 Certainly Cornelius had not first believed in Christ’s death and resurrection to save him and then later come into a second experience after his conversion.

In Acts 19, once again we encounter a situation of some people who had not really heard the gospel of salvation through Christ. They had been baptized into the baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3), so they were probably people who had heard John the Baptist preach, or had talked to others who had heard John the Baptist preach, and had been baptized “into John’s baptism” (Acts 19:3) as a sign that they were repenting of their sins and preparing for the Messiah who was to come. They certainly had not heard of Christ’s death and resurrection, for they had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2)!—a fact that no one who was present at Pentecost or who had heard the gospel after Pentecost could have failed to know. It is likely that they had not even heard that Jesus had come and lived and died, because Paul had to explain to them, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus” (Acts 19:4). Therefore these “disciples” in Ephesus did not have new covenant understanding or new covenant faith, and they certainly did not have a new covenant empowering of the Holy Spirit—they were “disciples” only in the sense of followers of John the Baptist who were still waiting for the p 775 Messiah. When they heard of him they believed in him, and then received the power of the Holy Spirit that was appropriate to the gospel of the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Because of this, these disciples at Ephesus are certainly not a pattern for us today either, for we do not first have faith in a Messiah that we are waiting for, and then later learn that Jesus has come and lived and died and risen again. We come into an understanding of the gospel of Christ immediately, and we, like the Corinthians, enter immediately into the new covenant experience of the power of the Holy Spirit.26

It seems therefore that there are no New Testament texts that encourage us to seek for a second experience of “baptism in the Holy Spirit” that comes after conversion.

 

[Blade]

To bypass most of this one has to run with things that are not written. God said anyone that wants the Holy Spirit one has to just ask. God said it. Then Christ prayed to the Father... the 120 not just 12 were all filled with the holy Spirit. What did they not already have the holy Spirit? How about that one "have you received the holy Spirit since you believed?" Just these two were they not all saved? Yes did they not have the holy spirit? Seems they didn't have something since Christ told them He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Of which,” He said, “you have heard Me speak or John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Wow seems some said those words to Paul? "We were baptized unto John".

So some believe just what's written others don't. Know that if we tell GOD what He really said in His word that is ALL we will see. He will never go against your will. I don't care what man says about Gods word. If He said it.. I believe it and He has done it every single time. What gets me is we have a GOD the only true GOD in us that said we can ask Him anything and His sheep know/hear His voice and we know He always hears the righteous He does not hear the wicked. We know He answers before we finish our prayer. So what ever we ask Him in Jesus name He will do. If two of us shall agree the Father will do it.

So yes before I was filled with the sweet sweet holy Spirit I was saved exactly like the 12/120. Yet when I was filled after I asked the Father Luke 11:13..oh it was like night and day. I received it exactly like its written in the word and as Christ said I did receive power after He the holy Spirit came on me. See I just take Him not man at His word. ALL must do the same. At some point we must seek Him and Him alone to know what HE said what He meant in His word for He is the word. So just believe what He said not add to as in "didn't say ALL would get it".. things like that. That's doubt and speculation. You just say believe what He said and then you stand on that not what you see hear feel around you. Do that and you will not receive. Praise GOD He reaches down and helps when we try yet just can't at times stand. I am no one.. sin more then most yet He keeps His word when I stand and believe.

Said this a few time. In my life not to boast but seen wonders and all I can come up with is it came down to blind faith. Well I just read it and believe never get it another thought. Well He can't lie. We can trust that best friend or the like then do the same for this GOD that lives in you.

 

[NBB]

An experience with God is worth more than what 100 theologians would say.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

cont...

C. How Should We Understand the “Second Experiences” in Acts?

But even if we have correctly understood the experience of the disciples at Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2, are there not other examples of people who had a “second experience” of empowering of the Holy Spirit after conversion, such as those in Acts 8 (at Samaria), Acts 10 (Cornelius’ household), and Acts 19 (the Ephesian disciples)?

These are not really convincing examples to prove the Pentecostal doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit either. First, the expression “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not ordinarily used to refer to any of these events,22 and this should give us some hesitation in applying this phrase to them. But more importantly, a closer look at each case shows more clearly what was happening in these events.
In Acts 8:4–25 the Samaritan people “believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” and “they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). Some have argued that this was not genuine saving faith on the part of the Samaritans.23 However, there is no indication in the text that Philip had a deficient understanding of the gospel (he had been prominent in the Jerusalem church) or that Philip himself thought that their faith in Christ was inadequate, for he allowed them to be baptized (Acts 8:12).

A better understanding of this event would be that God, in his providence, sovereignly waited to give the new covenant empowering of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans directly through the hands of the apostles (Acts 8:14–17) 24 so that it might be evident to the highest leadership in the Jerusalem church that the Samaritans were not second-class citizens but full members of the church. This was important because of the historical animosity between Jews and Samaritans (“Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,” John 4:9), and because Jesus had specified that the spread of the gospel to Samaria would be the next major step after it had been preached in Jerusalem and the region of Judea that surrounded Jerusalem: “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Thus, the event in Acts 8 was a kind of “Samaritan Pentecost,” a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the people of Samaria, who were a mixed race of Jewish and Gentile ancestry, so that it might be evident to all that the full new covenant blessings and power of the Holy Spirit had come to this group of people as well, and were not confined to Jews only. Because this is a special event in the history of redemption, as the pattern of Acts 1:8 is worked out in the book of Acts, it is not a pattern for us to repeat today. It is simply part of the transition between the old covenant experience of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant experience of the Holy Spirit.

The situation in Acts 10 is less complicated, because it is not even clear that Cornelius was a genuine believer before Peter came and preached the gospel to him. Certainly he had not trusted in Christ for salvation. He is rather a Gentile who was one of the first examples of the way in which the gospel would go “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).25 Certainly Cornelius had not first believed in Christ’s death and resurrection to save him and then later come into a second experience after his conversion.

In Acts 19, once again we encounter a situation of some people who had not really heard the gospel of salvation through Christ. They had been baptized into the baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3), so they were probably people who had heard John the Baptist preach, or had talked to others who had heard John the Baptist preach, and had been baptized “into John’s baptism” (Acts 19:3) as a sign that they were repenting of their sins and preparing for the Messiah who was to come. They certainly had not heard of Christ’s death and resurrection, for they had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2)!—a fact that no one who was present at Pentecost or who had heard the gospel after Pentecost could have failed to know. It is likely that they had not even heard that Jesus had come and lived and died, because Paul had to explain to them, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus” (Acts 19:4). Therefore these “disciples” in Ephesus did not have new covenant understanding or new covenant faith, and they certainly did not have a new covenant empowering of the Holy Spirit—they were “disciples” only in the sense of followers of John the Baptist who were still waiting for the p 775 Messiah. When they heard of him they believed in him, and then received the power of the Holy Spirit that was appropriate to the gospel of the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Because of this, these disciples at Ephesus are certainly not a pattern for us today either, for we do not first have faith in a Messiah that we are waiting for, and then later learn that Jesus has come and lived and died and risen again. We come into an understanding of the gospel of Christ immediately, and we, like the Corinthians, enter immediately into the new covenant experience of the power of the Holy Spirit.26

It seems therefore that there are no New Testament texts that encourage us to seek for a second experience of “baptism in the Holy Spirit” that comes after conversion.

Do you have those resources in logos or another bible app ?

 

[swordsman1]

Do you have those resources in logos or another bible app ?

No, just eBooks.

 

[Mr. M]

Question: Is William Lane Craig right? Are Pentecostals & Charismatics right? Who is right?

Wow!
Question:When did the Holy Spirit become a doctrine?
I have always known Him as a person.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I do not consider myself Pentecostal nor do I support any specific charismatic denomination. I would rather label myself a continuationist, although I can understand to some extent why concentric cessationism may seem a reasonable position to hold as well for some. Having said that, I think I can make a case for a "second experience", even if "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is not strictly speaking the best label for it.

William Lane Craig said:

Charismatics will usually appeal to the stories in the book of Acts to show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not an initiatory act but is a second work of grace. But, in fact, a close examination of those stories in the book of Acts reveals that in every single case it is clearly an initial experience of the Holy Spirit that is being described and not a second experience. [...]​

He then proceeds to cite a number of instances from the book of Acts, namely, Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10-11 and Acts 19. Craig then concludes:

So, although the baptism of the Holy Spirit in these acts is differently related to water baptism (sometimes preceding it; sometimes actually coming after water baptism), nevertheless it is clear that in every case the persons who experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit are experiencing an initial act of the Holy Spirit and not some sort of secondary act of grace which puts them into a deeper walk with Christ.​

Although I understand Craig's reasoning in the aforementioned four cases, I was very surprised by the fact that he completely overlooked a very important instance from chapter 4:

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:29-31 ESV)​

Pulpit's commentary:

Verse 31. - Wherein they were gathered for when they were assembled, A.V. When they had prayed. When they had finished the preceding prayer. The place was shaken, perhaps by a mighty wind, as in Acts 2:2. The word σαλεύεσθαι is properly used of ships or of the sea agitated and tossed by the wind; so Matthew 11:7, "A reed shaken by the wind." But it is also applied to the rocking caused by an earthquake (Acts 16:26), which maybe the kind of shaking here meant. In this fresh outpouring of the Spirit, whereby they were enabled to speak the word of God with boldness, they had a direct and immediate answer to their prayer (see Isaiah 65:24). Acts 4:31​

Ellicot's commentary:

(31) The place was shaken. . . .—The impression on the senses was so far a renewal of the wonder of the Day of Pentecost, but in this instance without the sign of the tongues of fire, which were the symbols of a gift imparted once for all, and, perhaps also, without the special marvel of the utterance of the tongues. The disciples felt the power of the Spirit, the evidence of sense confirming that of inward, spiritual consciousness, and it came in the form for which they had made a special supplication, the power to speak with boldness the word which they were commissioned to speak.​

I agree with Pulpit and Ellicot. I also think that what the apostles and disciples experienced (who by the way had already been baptized with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost -- Acts 2:4) was a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit. A fresh experience. A new experience. A "second experience" (or a third, or a fourth, etc.). And this experience is labeled "filled with the Holy Spirit", which is exactly the same phrase used in Acts 2:4:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4 ESV)​

But we know that what took place in Acts 2:4 was a baptism with the Holy Spirit:

4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:4-5 ESV)​

Were the apostles and disciples "baptized with the Holy Spirit" again in Acts 4:31? I wouldn't be so fast to claim that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is the appropriate label/concept here, but at the very least we can confidently conclude that the experience in Acts 4:31 was very similar to the experience in Acts 2:4. And given that there were people present at both events, it follows logically that Christians can experience profound visitations of the Holy Spirit more than once. Dottard's answer here comes to the same conclusion. Notice that at both events the disciples are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit, suggesting that the phrase filled with the Holy Spirit denotes a powerful visitation of the Holy Spirit, which can happen more than once.

In fact, in Ephesians 5:18-21 Paul exhorts Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit:

18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (ESV)​

If Christians already have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, then Paul's exhortation wouldn't make sense unless he is encouraging his audience to pursue a deeper walk with and experience of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

From Acts 2:4, Acts 4:31 and Ephesians 5:18 we can make the case that:

• Christians can be filled with the Holy Spirit more than once, and
• to be filled with the Holy Spirit denotes an extraordinary visitation/outpouring of the Holy Spirit that is consciously experienced by the believer.

 

[swordsman1]

I do not consider myself Pentecostal nor do I support any specific charismatic denomination. I would rather label myself a continuationist, although I can understand to some extent why concentric cessationism may seem a reasonable position to hold as well for some. Having said that, I think I can make a case for a "second experience", even if "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is not strictly speaking the best label for it.

William Lane Craig said:

Charismatics will usually appeal to the stories in the book of Acts to show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not an initiatory act but is a second work of grace. But, in fact, a close examination of those stories in the book of Acts reveals that in every single case it is clearly an initial experience of the Holy Spirit that is being described and not a second experience. [...]​

He then proceeds to cite a number of instances from the book of Acts, namely, Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10-11 and Acts 19. Craig then concludes:

So, although the baptism of the Holy Spirit in these acts is differently related to water baptism (sometimes preceding it; sometimes actually coming after water baptism), nevertheless it is clear that in every case the persons who experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit are experiencing an initial act of the Holy Spirit and not some sort of secondary act of grace which puts them into a deeper walk with Christ.​

Although I understand Craig's reasoning in the aforementioned four cases, I was very surprised by the fact that he completely overlooked a very important instance from chapter 4:

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:29-31 ESV)​

Pulpit's commentary:

Verse 31. - Wherein they were gathered for when they were assembled, A.V. When they had prayed. When they had finished the preceding prayer. The place was shaken, perhaps by a mighty wind, as in Acts 2:2. The word σαλεύεσθαι is properly used of ships or of the sea agitated and tossed by the wind; so Matthew 11:7, "A reed shaken by the wind." But it is also applied to the rocking caused by an earthquake (Acts 16:26), which maybe the kind of shaking here meant. In this fresh outpouring of the Spirit, whereby they were enabled to speak the word of God with boldness, they had a direct and immediate answer to their prayer (see Isaiah 65:24). Acts 4:31​

Ellicot's commentary:

(31) The place was shaken. . . .—The impression on the senses was so far a renewal of the wonder of the Day of Pentecost, but in this instance without the sign of the tongues of fire, which were the symbols of a gift imparted once for all, and, perhaps also, without the special marvel of the utterance of the tongues. The disciples felt the power of the Spirit, the evidence of sense confirming that of inward, spiritual consciousness, and it came in the form for which they had made a special supplication, the power to speak with boldness the word which they were commissioned to speak.​

I agree with Pulpit and Ellicot. I also think that what the apostles and disciples experienced (who by the way had already been baptized with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost -- Acts 2:4) was a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit. A fresh experience. A new experience. A "second experience" (or a third, or a fourth, etc.). And this experience is labeled "filled with the Holy Spirit", which is exactly the same phrase used in Acts 2:4:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4 ESV)​

But we know that what took place in Acts 2:4 was a baptism with the Holy Spirit:

4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:4-5 ESV)​

Were the apostles and disciples "baptized with the Holy Spirit" again in Acts 4:31? I wouldn't be so fast to claim that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is the appropriate label/concept here, but at the very least we can confidently conclude that the experience in Acts 4:31 was very similar to the experience in Acts 2:4. And given that there were people present at both events, it follows logically that Christians can experience profound visitations of the Holy Spirit more than once. Dottard's answer here comes to the same conclusion. Notice that at both events the disciples are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit, suggesting that the phrase filled with the Holy Spirit denotes a powerful visitation of the Holy Spirit, which can happen more than once.

In fact, in Ephesians 5:18-21 Paul exhorts Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit:

18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (ESV)​

If Christians already have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, then Paul's exhortation wouldn't make sense unless he is encouraging his audience to pursue a deeper walk with and experience of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

From Acts 2:4, Acts 4:31 and Ephesians 5:18 we can make the case that:

• Christians can be filled with the Holy Spirit more than once, and
• to be filled with the Holy Spirit denotes an extraordinary visitation/outpouring of the Holy Spirit that is consciously experienced by the believer.

I would agree that being "filled" with the Holy Spirit is a repeatable occurrence. There are about a dozen examples of it in Acts, with some people being "filled" multiple times. But only one of those examples, at Pentecost, involved speaking in tongues (genuine foreign language tongues, not the fake babble we commonly hear today). So we cannot say that tongues is normally associated with being filled with the Spirit, nor receiving any other gift of the Spirit. Neither is it associated with being 'slain in the Spirit', feeling electricity tingles, a warm glow, hysterical laughter or any other strange behavior that is claimed to be the Holy Spirit nowadays but is nowhere to be found in scripture.

The one thing the biblical examples of being 'filled' do have in common is BOLDNESS. Eg Peter speaking before the Sanhedrin, fearless Stephen at his martyrdom, Paul preaching immediately after being converted, Paul confronting the false prophet Elymas, the disciples defiance at Iconium, etc. As Eph 5:18 implies, to be filled with the Spirit we need to yield to the influence of the Holy Spirit, in contrast to the drunkard who is under the influence of alcohol. And to be led by the Spirit we first need to put to death the misdeeds of the body, and lead a godly lifestyle (Romans 8:13-14).

 

[TruthSeek3r]

So we cannot say that tongues is normally associated with being filled with the Spirit, nor receiving any other gift of the Spirit. Neither is it associated with being 'slain in the Spirit', feeling electricity tingles, a warm glow, hysterical laughter or any other strange behavior that is claimed to be the Holy Spirit nowadays but is nowhere to be found in scripture.

Sure, I never claimed that to be the case either.

 

[JAL]

William Lane Craig is correct, Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at conversion. The idea of it being a secondary experience is old school Pentecostal teaching which has been widely refuted by bible scholars including Pentecostalism's own chief theologian Gordon Fee, as well as the most respected charismatic theologian Wayne Grudem.

I can quote expositions from them both if needed.

I think you'll agree that Gordon Fee is not chief Pentecostal theologian on subsequence. That title probably belongs to Howard Ervin whose books were quite effective in defending subsequence.

Paul was a theologian, and his Spirit-baptism means regeneration. Regeneration, in my opinion, distinguishes believers from unbelievers. I am amazed that many Christians think the OT saints were unregenerate - they remained children of the devil?.

Luke was not a theologian but a historian. Most historians didn't say much about regeneration but they did highlight the deeds, utterances, and miracles of prophets - the Spirit of prophecy. Case in point, Elijah bequeathed to Elisha a double-portion of his prophetic anointing. The mentor passed his charismatic anointing to his student. This is NOT the sort of anointing normally conferred to a new believer at the time of conversion. It tends to be a privileged experience but, in times of revival, the Spirit of prophecy can actually be very widespread - e.g. 70 elders received it at once from Moses (Num 11:25).

Back to Elijah-Elisha. That's exactly what Luke is framing for us on Pentecost. Jesus bequeathes His own charismatic anointing (healing the sick, raising the dead, Spirit-inspired speech) to His apostles.

Pentecost was hands-down the Spirit-of-prophecy. I have a 2-part proof on another thread, see post 179 and post 180. As such, the Lukan Spirit-baptism NORMALLY falls on believers, i.e. subsequent to conversion. Acts 19 is an important example, for two reasons.

1. These were disciples of John the Baptist. 20 years after his death, they still lacked the Lukan gift.

2. As Ervin argues, the QUESTION:

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit since you believed?"

must be understood in terms of the SEQUEL:

"When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."

This is subsequence. Much as I respect Gordon Fee, I am appalled that he so glibly glosses over the fact that, in every case, Luke makes it clear that the recipients receive this special gift AFTER conversion, typically after water-baptism. Even Acts 2:38:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

UPDATE: By "after conversion" I just mean "after saving faith" (after salvation).