Initial Evidence of Spirit Baptism?

Pentecostal theology has clung tightly to the doctrine of speaking in tongues (also called glossolalia) as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit. The biblical support for this doctrine comes almost exclusively from the book of Acts. In five places believers are filled with the Spirit and, Pentecostals assert, these five instances indicate tongues to be the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism.

In Acts 2:1-4 and 10:44-46 it is clear that those who were filled spoke in tongues, and in Acts 19:1-6 the believers spoke in tongues and prophesied. But the other two instances are not as clear. In Acts 8:14-17 believers were filled with the Spirit with no mention of accompanying signs. But in the following verses Simon offers to purchase the ability to confer the gift as Peter and John did. This suggests that Simon saw or heard something impressive, a physical evidence that demonstrated that the believers were filled with the Spirit. It is reasonable to conclude that what he heard was speaking in tongues. In Acts 9 Saul is converted and filled with the Holy Spirit. Since Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14 that he speaks in tongues more than the Corinthians, it is clear that Paul received this gift, and it is reasonable to think that it happened at the time he was filled with the Spirit.

Is this a correct interpretation of the Acts texts? To answer this question we have to ask, was Luke intending to teach tongues as initial evidence, or if not, do we see Luke assuming this doctrine in the way he describes the experience? It seems clear that Luke is not intending to teach initial evidence, for if he were, he would have been sure to mention tongues in every instance where Spirit baptism occurs. Leaving it out of the Samaritan experience in Acts 8 is most unusual if Luke wanted to teach this to his hearers. Also, combining prophecy with tongues speech in Acts 19 would have confused his intended teaching, unless he wished to say that both tongues and prophecy were the initial evidence.

But we need to take a closer look at the text to see if Luke might have assumed tongues as initial evidence when he wrote. If everyone already believed this doctrine, Luke would see no need to teach it, and he would not need to mention tongues every time he describes Spirit baptism, so its absence in Acts 8 and 9 is not disconcerting. But when Luke writes about Spirit baptism, any beliefs about initial evidence should become evident to some degree. Does Luke betray a belief in tongues as initial evidence?

If Luke believed in tongues as initial evidence, then the occurrence of prophecy in Acts 19:6 comes as a surprise. There Luke is describing the immediate effects of Spirit baptism. What he describes reveals what he believes to be the initial physical evidence, if indeed he believed there was such a thing. The inclusion of prophecy suggests that if there is an initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism, then speaking in tongues may be too narrow a category to describe it.

Speaking in tongues itself is a subcategory of prophecy, as Acts 2 indicates. Luke records Peter explaining the glossolalic outburst on the Day of Pentecost as a fulfillment of a prophecy by Joel that spoke of everyone prophesying (2:16-17). So for Peter and Luke, to speak in tongues is to prophesy. It is a form of prophecy. Partly for this reason, some Pentecostal scholars have suggested a broader understanding of the initial evidence doctrine. William Menzies suggested the term, “Spirit-inspired speech.” This would include prophecy as well as tongue-speaking, but would not be limited to those two manifestations. Any word spoken out of the fullness of the Spirit can be referred to as Spirit-inspired speech.

Prophecy in the apostolic age may have had two connotations. Narrowly defined, prophecy consists of words spoken from God through a prophet. Broadly defined, it can be any spoken word that derives its source from the Spirit, whether those words are in one’s native tongue or a language the speaker has never learned. In this case, a joyful outburst of praise in one’s native language can serve as evidence that one has been filled with the Spirit. I have often heard people burst out in praise to God in English and instantly knew they were praising God by the Spirit. Acts records this as part of the evidence of a Spirit-filled community (13:52; cf. 8:8). Today it may be confusing to refer to a sudden, joyful, outburst of praise as prophecy, but if it can be called Spirit-inspired speech, it may be used as an indication that one has been filled with the Spirit.

But perhaps all this talk about initial physical evidence is off the mark altogether. Reading Paul’s letters, one comes away with the conviction that all believers are possessed by the Spirit and that all are expected to be full of the Spirit at all times. There is no discussion of a second work of grace; only the full manifestation of the original work of conversion.

All believers receive the Spirit. One cannot receive part of the Spirit. He is a person and cannot be divided into parts. We who believe in Jesus have all the Spirit we are ever going to receive in this life. It is not a question of us getting more of the Spirit, but of the Spirit getting more of us. When we surrender our lives fully to him, we can begin to walk in the fullness of the Spirit. Any believer anywhere in the world can immediately be filled with the Spirit simply by fully surrendering to him. That includes the surrender of your mind that questions whether God still works miracles today, and the surrender of your tongue that only speaks what the mind tells it to say.

I believe the reason millions of Christians have never spoken in tongues is because they are convinced God does not want them to. If you are willing to surrender this presupposition and fall fully into the arms of God’s grace, you may be surprised what you hear coming out of your mouth. Regardless of what happens, though, why not do it? What harm can come from fully surrendering to God.

I do not think it is helpful any longer to teach Spirit baptism as a second work of grace. Millions of evangelicals are put off by this teaching. But if being filled with the Spirit simply referred to experiencing the fullness of him who already indwells us, more people would be open to experiencing that fullness, even if it came with a message in tongues. I hope that the future of the Pentecostal movement takes a step in this direction for the sake of unity and for the sake of truth.

Acts and the Baptism of the Spirit

What does the Book of Acts teach about Spirit baptism? Does it teach it as a second work of grace, subsequent to conversion? Or does it teach it as part of the work of conversion? If the latter, than does that mean one has to be baptized in the Spirit in order to be saved?

Proponents of Spirit baptism as a second (or third) work of grace find the strength of their argument from two passages in Acts. In Acts 8:14-16 Samaritans received the gospel and were baptized, but they had not been filled with the Spirit. When Peter and John came from Jerusalem and laid hands on them they were baptized in the Spirit. This seems to be a clear demonstration of Spirit baptism as a second work of grace, for it must have taken at least a few days for people to travel from Samaria to Jerusalem and fetch the apostles.

There is no question that these believers did not receive Spirit baptism at the time they believed, or even when they were baptized, which would have followed the formula laid out in Acts 2:38. But it also seems clear that this was an unacceptable situation, one that needed the immediate attention of the apostles. To send for them, making them take a long journey, one that probably would have taken more than a day, to have them address the issue of believers who were not filled with the Spirit indicates that this was an exceptional case.

If Spirit baptism was accepted by the earliest Christians as a work of grace subsequent to salvation, then it is difficult to explain why Philip would see it as a problem, especially one so severe as to send for apostles to fix it. But if all believers were filled with the Spirit when they believed or were baptized, then this would be a striking contrast to the norm, causing many to wonder if God has in fact accepted these Samaritans. Maybe they need to become full-fledged Jews before God will accept them and give them his Spirit. So Philip calls for help, but when Peter and John arrive, they do not make any further requirements. Instead, they merely lay hands on them and they are filled.

Apparently, what God wanted was apostolic affirmation of the conversion of the Samaritans. Jews of Judea and Galilee viewed Samaritans as half-breeds or foreigners, which is what Jesus called a Samaritan in Luke 17:18. But they would not be considered pagans. One of Luke’s concerns in Acts is to show that through the Holy Spirit, God unites all the sects of Judaism. Without apostolic approval, uniting “foreigners” like the Samaritans to the Jerusalem church might have been problematic, much like uniting Gentiles was, requiring a conference to settle the matter (Acts 15).

It is also noteworthy that Luke records John as recommending immediate judgment on the Samaritans for resisting the ministry of Jesus (Luke 9:54). Now this same John is praying for them to receive the Holy Spirit. This must have been a formative moment in John’s life and ministry. In any case, Acts 8:14-16 seems to demonstrate an exception to the rule, not an example from which to form doctrine. Spirit baptism as a separate work of grace should not be taught from this passage alone.

To find a supporting text, some turn to Acts 19:2 Paul asks followers of John the Baptist, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed” (KJV). Paul seems to indicate that receiving the Holy Spirit is something that happens after believing, seemingly as a second work of grace.

The participle in this verse (since ye believed) expresses action antecedent to the action of the main verb (have ye received). This would suggest that the receiving of the Spirit and believing are two separate acts. But the antecedent action of a participle can sometimes be so close in time as to be negligible. That seems to be the case here, and that is why the NIV renders the phrase, “when you believed.” That means Paul is asking if they received the Spirit at the time they believed, not at some future time. So this verse does not support Spirit baptism as a separate work of grace.

It might be suggested that simply to ask the question means Paul was entertaining the idea that people might not receive the Spirit upon conversion. But the context of the passage suggests something else was in Paul’s mind. These were followers of John the Baptist, and Paul did not know the content of their faith. By asking if they had received the Spirit, Paul could ascertain whether these were believers in Jesus, or simply disciples of John who had not yet heard that messiah Jesus had come. So Paul’s question does not mean he thinks believers might not receive the Holy Spirit immediately. Quite the opposite, it means because all believers do receive the Spirit, he can find out if these are true believers simply by asking them if they have received.

This is not to say that there are no experiences of the Spirit subsequent to salvation. Acts 4:31 shows a dynamic explosion of the Spirit in the lives of believers who had already previously been filled. We should always be hungry and seek for the Holy Spirit to fill us, refill us, and keep us filled. But we also should not preach the gospel in two parts, telling unbelievers they need to be saved, so the Holy Spirit can indwell them, and wait until after they are saved to tell them they need to be infilled. The full gospel message needs to be shared with unbelievers, including the baptism of the Spirit.

Pentecostals are frequently charged with believing in doctrines based on experience, rather than Scripture. For the most part, this charge is specious. But there may be a case for it here. At the beginning of the Pentecostal movement, believers were being marvelously filled with the Spirit as God was restoring a missing ingredient to the church. Because believers had gone so long without this important aspect of the Spirit’s work, God needed to fill millions of believers with his Holy Spirit, after which, many of them would go on the mission field and see millions of unbelievers saved and filled with the Spirit.

The people formulating Pentecostal doctrine had almost all been filled with the Spirit many years after having been saved. It seemed obvious to them that Spirit baptism was a separate work of grace, and so that is how they interpreted Acts. And that works for people who are already saved but have never experienced the fullness of the Spirit’s work in their lives. But what about new converts?

Could it be that the reason so many believers do not receive Spirit baptism until months or even years after their conversion is because that is the way the message was proclaimed to them? What would happen if when we witnessed to unbelievers, we told them that when they get saved they can receive the baptism of the Spirit with an observable manifestation of the Spirit’s power? I think a lot more people would get filled with the Spirit the moment they believed. Of course, it is a lot easier to assume a person is saved on the basis of a prayer without requiring a supernatural manifestation of the Spirit to verify it. Which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or rise up and walk, or speak in tongues? But if we believe in the power of the gospel, we can trust God to fill those who seek him and to give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.

Again, I am not suggesting that one should not be considered saved who has not manifested any Spiritual gift. However, I would suggest, based on the Book of Acts, that Luke might question the salvation of such a person. We live in a different world today and many sincere, godly Christians, some of whom have done much to change the world and advance the kingdom of God, have never manifested a Spiritual gift. Spirit possession is the mark of a Christian, and if one is possessed by the Spirit, the evidence will be there. That evidence is a changed life.

But there is also power in the Holy Spirit, and my desire is to see all believers endued with power from on high. Why not? Who would not want God’s power? If it is not for today, then no harm will come from asking God for whatever he has for your life. If it is for today, you could be missing out on something great by not asking. If you ask for a fish, God will not give you a serpent. There is no risk of receiving something demonic from God. Satan cannot intercept your prayers, and God always gives good gifts to his children. So why not ask for the power of the Spirit today?

What Is Spirit Baptism? A Fresh Look at A Pentecostal Distinctive

Perception is reality, as the saying goes. We all have our own thought worlds. Collectively, people with similar thought-worlds form a mini-culture through which they interpret everything around them. It is good to be firmly entrenched in a community, but it does not come without dangers. One of the greatest dangers is to think that one’s community has cornered the market on truth. People with such a thought pattern will judge outsiders not on the basis of Scripture, but on the basis of whether they deviate from their own community. This is one of the errors of many King James Only communities. Modern translations are corrupt not because they deviate from the original inspired text of Scripture, but because they deviate from the King James Version. In other words, they deviate from their own mini-culture.

Scripture teaches us that we need each other. Not only do we need each other within our little community of like-minded thinkers, but within the larger community of believers. We need those whose beliefs differ greatly from our own, perhaps even more than we need the people who are most like us. Those who differ with us see things from a different perspective, and they are able to see things we do not see. It is wise for every believer to be conscious of the community he is a part of, and be aware of doctrines and beliefs that are held because the community teaches it, rather than because that is the way Scripture demands it. In all likelihood, what the community teaches is what the Bible demands, but in some cases it is not. Sometimes a community teaches something unbiblical, but usually it just emphasizes a truth too strongly, shutting out all others who see things differently, even though Scripture is not clear enough on the subject to justify such dogmatism.

The community I am a part of is a combination of Pentecostal and Charismatic. This provides a mini-culture that includes expectations of supernatural expressions of the Spirit, including tongues, healing, prophecy, and miracles. Standing behind the expectation of these phenomena are some core doctrines about the Holy Spirit, a few of which may be considered part of the sine qua non (non-negotiables) of the Pentecostal movement. Not least of these is the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The Pentecostal movement has always held Spirit baptism to be a separate work of grace from salvation, i.e., a post-salvation event that believers should seek. Seekers of this experience are usually told to expect God to give them something they did not previously possess – the infilling of the Spirit. At conversion believers are indwelt, but at Spirit baptism they are infilled.

My interpretation of Spirit baptism differs from this, and I plan to share my differences in this and future articles. But first I would like to express some problems that people from other communities have with the traditional Pentecostal position. people from other traditions have difficulty differentiating between indwelling and infilling. When they hear Pentecostals saying things like, “You need the holy Ghost,” it sounds to many of them as though Pentecostals view them as not possessing the Spirit, especially when the exhortations comes, as is so often the case, with an air of superiority: the one who has speaking to the one who has not. But possession of the Spirit is required for a person to be saved. Many evangelicals think Pentecostals are questioning their salvation when they are in fact only encouraging a greater experience of the Spirit. Pentecostals need to be more clear and more humble in their speech.

Many non-Pentecostals also believe they are already filled with the Spirit. They believe they have received all that God has for them and they are praying and laboring every day to walk that out in their lives. To be told that the Pentecostal church down the street has more of the Holy Spirit than they do may sound offensive to them. If you are Pentecostal and you do not understand why other evangelicals are not very accepting of you, this could be why.

Is it true that Pentecostals have more of the Holy Spirit, than non-Pentecostals? Sometimes it seems that way, especially when I see the gifts of the Spirit in operation. But often the opposite seems true. A lot of people who claim to have been baptized in the Spirit live lives that are so far from the teachings of Jesus that it is embarrassing to hear them publicly affirm they are Christians. Many people who have never been spirit baptized in the Pentecostal sense demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit better than most who speak in tongues on a daily basis. If we have more of the Spirit, then why do we not bear the fruit of the Spirit more consistently?

Could it be that Pentecostals do not actually have more of the Spirit just because they are Spirit-baptized? Does God give us part of his Spirit when we are saved, holding back so he can give us the rest when we receive Spirit baptism? I do not find this taught in Scripture. My Bible tells me that when we are saved we receive the Spirit, not part of the Spirit. You either have him or you do not.

If that is the case, then what is Spirit baptism? When Paul talks about it, he contrasts it with drunkenness: “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). The contrast seems to be about what or who influences you. To be under the influence of alcohol leads to an uncontrolled life of sin, but to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit is to be under God’s control, leading to a life of praise and thanksgiving to God.

That suggests that baptism in the Spirit may not be about getting more of the Holy Spirit, but about the Holy Spirit getting more of us. Submission of the whole life to God will result in being filled with the Spirit, and the result is not merely speaking in tongues or prophecy. Spirit-filled people are first and foremost known as those who “speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,” who “sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks (see verses 19-20). None of these activities requires a gift of the Spirit.

Perhaps if Pentecostals emphasized a life of praise and thanksgiving as much as they emphasized tongues and prophecy, they would not feel so isolated from the rest of the body of Christ. Perhaps if we were as eager to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit as we are the gifts, we would have better fellowship with other communities of believers who do not operate in the gifts. Perhaps those communities have something to offer us that we are lacking, just as we are convinced that we have something they lack. What if we all strove, like the Apostle Paul, to interact with each other in such a way that, “You and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith” (Rom 1:12)? I think the whole church would be stronger and more unified, enabling us to focus more attention on the things we agree about, like our mission to reach the world with the gospel. Let us strive together for these things.