Foundations of the Christian Life. Chapter 23. The Holy Spirit 4. Baptism vs Filling.

Foundations of the Christian Life.
Chapter 23. The Holy Spirit 4. Baptism vs Filling.

Author’s Note:
This next section (Chapters 23-26) covers a doctrinal debate about the Holy Spirit that has been current for the last 100 years. The next few chapters are therefore somewhat polemical (i.e. argument based). I would have liked to avoid this but it is not possible to develop the theme I want to develop without dealing with the questions and objections people raise. My aim is to get through this as clearly and as briefly as possible, but it will take as long as it takes.

To make it a bit more palatable I will partially cast it the form of a personal journey – the journey of thought I went on to come to these conclusions. I hope you like it. There is some good stuff here, even if you are not really into the intricacies of doctrinal debate. There may be a time when you want to refer back to this – particularly when someone queries something with you. It might help to have a rough idea of what is here for future reference.

Ultimately I am more interested in whether or not we enter into the experience of everything God has for us, not in doctrine. Unfortunately so much has been said already about this issue that is woolly thinking that I feel I need to spend considerable time on it.

Question: Is the debate important? Can't we forget about doctrine and just concentrate on the experience?

The answer to this is simple: Yes it is important. What we believe will determine our practice and experience in the long term. If our doctrine is faulty then our practice will be faulty.

It is the contention of this author that the both sides of the debate are partially right and both are partially wrong. The net result is that, for both sides, there is often a missing out on a full Christian experience of the Spirit. Let’s see why that may be true.

A Definition:
In this discussion I am going to call the experience Pentecostals promote the “Pentecostal experience”. I will call it this because:
* As will become clear, I believe it to be the experience of the 120 on the Day of Pentecost.
* It is the definitive thing about the modern Pentecostal churches.

Pentecostals tend to call it “the Baptism in the Spirit,” Charismatics tend to call it “the Filling of the Spirit.” I choose not to call it either of these for reasons that will soon become obvious. The “Pentecostal Experience” seems to me to be the best name to avoid the problems the other two names generate.

BACKGROUND:

I grew up in a Conservative Evangelical church which, in many ways, was a great blessing to me. One of the many blessings was a significant number of very dedicated, Godly people who attended that church and modeled God to me. Their deep devotion to the Lord and their Godly Christian character were fine examples to a young man, like myself, growing up in their midst. The love of God just oozed out of many of them and they were filled with the joy of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit was greatly evident in their lives. One would have to say, by any definition given in Scripture, that they were “Spirit-filled”.

But when it came to the “Pentecostal experience” they were opposed to it. The basis of their opposition was twofold:
1. Their traditional belief was that the more miraculous gifts of the Spirit had died out after the first century, in their view God had removed them from the Church. The Pentecostal claim that these gifts had not “died out” or been “removed” seemed to be in error. I do not agree with this position but discussion of this is beyond the scope of this present series so I will not go into it here. Just to note that, in the view of these people I grew up with, practicing these “gifts” had to be, by definition, a deception, so was demonic, devilish.
2. The doctrinal presentations made to justify the Pentecostal experience seemed to clearly conflict with scripture. The conclusion, then, was that this experience was also a deception, devilish.

From their vantage point I think this seems fair enough. These understandings, they believed, were based firmly on scripture. I don’t agree with these positions now, but they were sincerely held beliefs at the time.
Because of a strong desire to be scriptural there was a high level of fear about “Pentecostalism” so most people in my church did their best to avoid any contact with it in any way. They ignored it as best they could and carried on serving God as best they knew how with the understanding they had. The occasional person made a point of publicly opposing Pentecostalism. When they did that the thing I noticed was that the fruit of the Spirit disappeared from their life very quickly. They became angry, argumentative, closed minded, bigoted, bitter, hateful. This is normal when a person becomes “anti” anything.

However, by and large, most of the church were lovely, Godly people who I would have to say were “Spirit-filled”.

In my late teens I went to University. There I encountered many Charismatics and Pentecostals – hundreds of them. I did not go there uninformed – an elder of my church had warned me the day before University started of the evils of “these Pentecostals”, and how I should avoid them like the plague. But what I discovered, to my amusement really, was that these “Pentecostal types” weren’t so bad after all. They were dedicated to God and Christ, were actively seeking to follow Christ, loved to spend time in worshipping him and in Bible study, were highly motivated to serve God and to witness to Christ and, generally, showed good fruit of the Spirit. They did not evidence any signs of great deception and, except for the two doctrinal positions mentioned above, seemed to be thoroughly conservative in belief and practice. In fact the Pentecostal/Charismatic students at University exhibited all of these Godly characteristics to a much greater degree than Christians from other streams, including the good Evangelicals. This greater spiritual impetus they attributed to having received “the Baptism in the Spirit” (though sometimes it was called “the Filling of the Spirit”). Not only that, those students who came from a Liberal church background who came into this “Pentecostal experience” very quickly abandoned their Liberalism and became staunch conservative evangelicals in belief. I considered this couldn’t be too bad.

This put me in a quandary. My observations told me these facts:
1. Many of the people in the church I grew up in lived Spirit-filled lives. That I could not doubt. Indeed their life and character far outstripped that of any Pentecostal or Charismatic I had met to that point. If anyone was Spirit-filled then many of the people in my church were.
2. The Pentecostals I was meeting clearly had a dynamic for God that the people in my church did not have, and I was increasingly unable to write that off as “not being of God”.
3. Pentecostals/Charismatics attributed this dynamic to being because of the “Baptism in the Spirit”, or the “Filling of the Spirit”, these two being identified – at least in popular thought.
4. Whatever this experience was that they had undergone it was not the “Filling of the Spirit” I knew of in my church.

I needed to do some research, so I read widely and talked with many people, but the answers seemed to elude me. It seemed to be a situation where there was major doctrinal conflict and that the formulations of doctrine coming from the Pentecostal side were weak, to say the least. Doctrine was strongly on the Conservative side, and I summarise their position now:

REASONS WHY EVERY CHRISTIAN IS BAPTISED IN THE SPIRIT (THE CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL VIEW).

In general it has been the teaching of the evangelical Church, and indeed the Church in general, that all Christians are baptised in the Spirit, and that this refers to the initial reception of the Spirit into our lives.

Proofs of this Doctrine.

(a) From an understanding of the New Covenant.

I covered this in Chapter 20, but to review:

Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant. As mediator he has fulfilled all that is required of God and all that is required of man for the Covenant to be made fully operative. To say he has not would be to say his work is incomplete.

The New Covenant Blessing of the Spirit includes both the indwelling (in) and the Baptism (upon). If we are in Christ we are in the new Covenant and so have this blessing.

(b) From an understanding of “the Promise of the Father”.

The Father promised that in the New Covenant there would be both a coming upon of the Spirit and an indwelling of the Spirit for all members of the covenant. The promise of the Father is given to all of the children.

(c) From an understanding of the outpouring of the Spirit.

When Christ ascended to heaven at the end of his earthly ministry we are told he was given the Holy Spirit in a new way.

Acts 2:33.
“Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.”

Here we read that Christ was given the Spirit as a sort of “reward” for his suffering, a final proof of his exaltation. He became "Lord of the Spirit".

This scripture finds its illustration in Psalm 133.
“How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity! It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron's beard, down upon the collar of his robes.”

Here we see when Christ was anointed as High Priest. This event is understood to have been at his exaltation, i.e. after his resurrection.

Notice how the oil is poured on the head and flows onto the body, He is baptised in it. The Body receives it because it is united with, and under, the head. Christ is the head, we are the body (Ephesians 1:22,23). If we are rightly related to the Head, i.e. under it, then the oil will naturally flow onto us, thus baptising us.

The whole head and the whole body, therefore, have the anointing.

The outpouring of the Spirit, initiated by Jesus on his Church, began on the day of Pentecost and continues to this day. There is no hint that any Christian misses out on that outpouring.

(d) The meaning of the word "seal".

Ephesians 1:13,14.
“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession- to the praise of his glory.”

The Bible was not written in a vacuum, there was an already existing religious culture in the world which Christ entered into. Part of the religious culture was the word "seal". In the religious sense it was a popular word and used by many religions. It was a word in common use that Paul picked up and filled with Christian meaning. The popular meaning was this: When someone wanted to join a religion there was normally some form of initiation rite. Usually this was a baptism of some form. One who underwent the initiation rite was called "sealed", in that they were now part of the "inner club" of the religion.

Sealing then refers to initiation into a religion, and baptism in particular. It is significant that in early Christian literature Baptism is often called "sealing". This passage in Ephesians 1 is always interpreted to mean baptism, i.e. joining the church.

Thus we can justifiably interpret this passage, where Paul says "We are all sealed in the Holy Spirit" to mean "we are all Baptised in the Holy Spirit."

(e) From God's Provision in Christ.

Ephesians 1:3.
"He has (already) blessed us with EVERY spiritual blessing in Christ"

Nothing is excluded. The Greek verb is aorist: "He has blessed us..." This means it is something that has happened in the past and the truth of it remains operative today. It can only refer back to conversion (baptism).

The Baptism in the Spirit is a spiritual blessing, so therefore we already have it in Christ.

(f) From the meaning of “Baptism.”

As I remarked above, baptism was always an initiation rite. Baptism thus means initiation. To be “baptised in the Spirit” is to be “initiated into the Spirit”. The reverse is also true.

To receive the Spirit at all (i.e. become a Christian), mean one has been initiated into the Spirit, i.e. baptised in the Spirit. It is illogical to say that this could happen twice, hence we must conclude that every Christian is baptised in the Spirit.

Romans 8:9.
“You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.”

To be a Christian is to have the Spirit, to be initiated/baptised in the Spirit.

(g) John 3:3-8.
“In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

Notice the phrases: "See the kingdom" and "Enter the kingdom".
These are not different things. Jesus is here using Hebrew parallelism, whereby the repetition of an idea or thought in different words reinforces the meaning. For Jesus, therefore, to "see" is to "see by revelation and to experience that which is seen", i.e. to enter into it. There is no "seeing" of spiritual truth in the Bible that does not include the full experience of what is seen. Our modern idea of "seeing" is weak.

In this context note John 3:5, which is an obvious reference to Baptism in the Spirit. One cannot "enter" the kingdom, i.e. be a Christian, without this being true of them.
* Some interpreters take the reference to “water” here in a literal sense, hence “born of water and of the Spirit” means to be baptised in water and in the Spirit.
* It seems to me that most take the reference to “water” to be symbolic, referring to the Spirit. In this case the meaning would be, “…born of water, even of the Spirit.”
* This second meaning seems preferable as the first meaning makes water baptism a condition of eternal salvation, which is not the case.
* However we need to remember that in the historical context where all who joined Christianity were immediately baptised in water, i.e. becoming a Christian was water baptism, it may be allowable to see “water” in a literal sense.

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

Paul here is using Hebrew parallelism again. He is saying the same thing in two different ways but the phrases are equivalent in meaning. A paraphrase of this could be:

"For we are all members of one body, baptised in one Spirit".
I.e. to be a member of the body is to be baptised in the Spirit, and it is true of all of us, i.e. all believers.

Note: The supposed difference between:
(i) A baptism IN the Spirit and
(ii) a Baptism BY the Spirit into the Body
- as is taught by some Pentecostals (based on this passage) does not hold water. The Greek preposition for "in", "of" and "by" are the same. This Pentecostal interpretation is simply an attempt to dispense with a verse that clearly contradicts their doctrinal position.

(g) Romans 5:1,5.
“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, …because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”

Here the Holy Spirit is given to those who are "justified by faith. Indeed the language used here ("poured") is that which recalls the Baptism of the Spirit.

Many other scriptures could be cited but these are sufficient to prove that all Christians have the Spirit. If it is true of all then the implication is clear - we receive the Spirit at Conversion. We are initiated into the Spirit at conversion, i.e. we are baptised in the Spirit.

Clearly a case can be established from scripture to prove that every Christian is baptised in the Spirit. One can only argue otherwise by ignoring key teaching on the Spirit and the meaning of the term "baptism".

The Conservative Evangelical doctrine at this stage must be given a big tick. It seemed to me then that my church had good reason for wanting to reject the Pentecostal doctrine, but this did not satisfy me totally. Rejecting wrong doctrine is one thing but did that make the Pentecostal experience wrong?

The fact that Pentecostal doctrine of the Baptism in the Spirit is faulty at this point only proves one thing, namely, that their doctrine is faulty. It does not mean their experience is wrong. It just means their explanation of their experience is wrong.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "BAPTISM" AND "FILLING":

In my musing it occurred to me, at this point, that the Baptism in the Spirit and the Filling of the Spirit may not, in fact, be the same thing. The identifying of them as the same appeared to me to be part of the confusion.

I began to meditate on the difference between the words “baptise” and “fill”.

Some people may say at this point: “Isn’t it just hair splitting to make a distinction between the Baptism in the Spirit and the Filling of the Spirit?”

I don’t believe so. I think the distinction is scriptural and is vital if we are going to clearly understand the full work of the Holy Spirit on our behalf.

I want to show you the difference between these two words. I will do this by way of illustration because this is the easiest way of getting the point across.

Imagine I have three empty drinking glasses and a large jug of water. I want to show you the difference between being baptised and being filled.

The glass represents us as people; the water represents the Holy Spirit.

I take the first glass. I hold it upside down with the mouth of the glass at the bottom. I can push it into the jug of water so that it is baptised – or immersed, because that is what baptise means. And when I take it out again what I have is a glass that has been baptised in the water.

But if you check you will find the glass is bone dry inside. The air trapped in the glass has prevented water from going into the glass.

Some Questions:
* Has this glass been baptised in the water? The answer is clearly, “Yes.”
* Is the glass filled with the water? The answer is clearly, “No. It is empty.”
* Has this glass in the course of this illustration ever been filled with water? The answer again is clearly, “No”.

So what we have here is a glass that has been baptised but not filled.

Now I take the second glass. I am going to hold this one right way up and immerse it in the water in the jug and then take it out. Now if you look carefully you will see it is filled with water.

Some Questions:
* Has this glass been baptised? The answer is, ”Yes.”
* Is this glass now filled? Again the answer is, “Yes.”

So what we have with the second glass is a glass that is both baptised and filled.

Now let’s take the third glass. With this one I put it on the table and taking the jug I pour some water into the glass.

Some Questions:
* When I do this do I pour the water “into” the glass or “onto” the glass? Clearly the answer is “into the glass” and not “onto the glass.”
* If I stop when the glass is half full is the glass filled with water? The answer is clearly, “No.” So it is clear that one can have the Spirit “in” them but not be filled with the Spirit?
* If I then fill the glass with water is the water “in” the glass or “on” the glass? The answer is clearly “in” the glass.
* Has the glass been baptised, immersed, in the water? The answer is clearly, “No.”

What we have here is a glass that is filled but not baptised.

Some Implications:
* The filling of the Spirit is therefore related to the “in” relationship of the Spirit to us and not to the “on” relationship, or baptism of the Spirit.
* Baptism means “to immerse or dip into a fluid and take it out again”. This glass is filled with water but has it been baptised in the water? The answer is clearly. “No.” So it is possible to be filled with the Spirit and not be baptised in the Spirit. Before you react to this statement because of what I have said above about Baptism being initiation, just hold fore – I will explain in due course in what sense I mean that one can be filled with the Spirit but not baptised in the Spirit. There is an apparent contradiction here – but only because I haven’t got through all the explaining I want to do yet.

At the end of this illustration we have three glasses:
* One has been baptised but never filled,
* One is filled but has never been baptised and
* One that has been both baptised and is now also filled.

This suggests the baptism in the Spirit and the Filling of the Spirit are two different things.

Do you see the difference? I can’t make it any simpler than this.

So I began to see that two things were possible and I was observing these:
1. It was possible to be “Spirit-filled” – as my Evangelical church friends were – and yet never have experienced this Pentecostal experience or experienced a “baptism in the Spirit”.
2. Equally it was just as possible for someone to have had an experience of Baptism in the Spirit – as my Pentecostal friends were – and not be Filled with the Spirit – as many of my Pentecostal friends were not.
(I am assuming language here I will seek to justify later, but it is easier at this point to just assume it.)

In other words the Baptism in the Spirit is something quite different from the Filling of the Spirit.

Some Pentecostal teachers recognise this difference, e.g.
Derek Prince’s book: “The Atonement”.
In his last chapter which is entitled “Possessing our Possessions” he talks about the Pentecostal experience we have been discussing in Acts 2:1-4.
He says this: “There were three successive phases in the experience described in Acts 2.
* First there was a baptism, an immersion in the Spirit. They were all immersed in the Holy Spirit coming down over them from above.
* Second there was an infilling – they were all individually filled with the Holy Spirit.
* Third there was an overflow. The Holy Spirit in them overflowed through them in (supernatural) speech.”

Derek Prince clearly differentiates here between the baptism in the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit. In his mind they are two different things.

What I have usually found is that both Pentecostals and Charismatics regularly confuse these two experiences by identifying them as being the same and then identifying them with the Pentecostal Experience. This has led to doctrinal confusions.

This identification of the Baptism, Filling and “the Pentecostal Experience” is clearly reflected in questions like the following:
* “Is he Spirit-filled?” Meaning, “Has he had this (Pentecostal) experience?”
* “Is it a Spirit-filled church?” Meaning, “Does it believe in and practice this experience and believe in all the gifts of the Spirit?”
These are simply the wrong questions because they reflect a wrong understanding of what the Filling of the Spirit is.

Charismatics typically imply the equation: The Pentecostal Experience = the filling of the Spirit.
The Charismatic position here ends up with an idea of the Filling of the Spirit that is:
1. A one-off experience. But as we have seen the filling of the Spirit can happen many times.
2. Once received it can’t be lost. But as we have seen it is possible to lose the filling of the Spirit.
The root problem here is that by confusing the Baptism in the Spirit with the filling of the Spirit the predicates of one (the Baptism) are applied to the other (the Filling) in a way that is not appropriate.
The predicates of the Baptism in the Spirit include:
1. It is a gift of grace given on the basis of Christ’s work not ours’.
2. Because it is a gift it cannot be lost once we have received it (Romans 11:29).
These are not true of the Filling of the Spirit. It is not a gift, it is dependent on our obedience, because of this it can be lost. The covenant gift of the Spirit that corresponds to the baptism in the Spirit is the Indwelling Spirit, not the filling of the Spirit. The indwelling Spirit, once received, cannot be lost, but the same is not true of the filling of the Spirit.

For this reason it is possible for:
1. An individual to be filled with the Spirit one day, but because of sin or some other reason, to have lost that filling the next day.
2. A church, even a church of 10,000 people, all of whom have had the Pentecostal experience but all of them for one reason or another to have lost the filling of the Spirit. Would it then be “A Spirit filled Church”? I think not.

Pentecostals do not usually make the equation in the direct way but rather end up falling into the same trap in the following way:
1. They identify the Pentecostal experience with the Baptism in the Spirit so: The Pentecostal Experience = the Baptism in the Spirit.
2. Then by default (through lack of thinking it through) this is identified with the Filling of the Spirit and the above sort of comments can then be made (viz, “Is he Spirit filled?” “Is it a Spirit filled Church?”).
The net result is the same.
I hope you can see now the Pentecostal and Charismatic errors.

By calling the Pentecostal experience “the Baptism in the Spirit” and identifying it with the “Filling of the Spirit” several problems occur:
1. Coming from the Pentecostal end of spectrum, people can think that because they have had a Pentecostal experience they are now permanently filled with the Spirit – so they don’t seek to “be continuously filled” as Paul commands in Ephesians 5. In this way they are robbed of the filling of the Spirit because they don’t know that they have to maintain it. We end up with a lot of Christians who have had a Pentecostal experience but are not now filled with the Spirit – but they are convinced that they are. Thus they are deceived and are missing out on God’s plan for their lives.
2. Coming from the Charismatic end of the spectrum the Charismatic teachers sense there is something wrong here with Pentecostal doctrine of the Baptism in the Spirit but they have not really thought out what it is. So they try to overcome it by calling the experience, “the Filling of the Spirit.” But in doing so they actually fall into the same trap. Charismatics generally assume that if they have had this Pentecostal experience then they are from then on always filled with the Spirit. So they fall into the same error even though they sense it is there and desperately try to avoid it. The assumption is still, “If you have had this experience you are permanently full of the Spirit.”

The end result for both groups is that neither group carries on seeking being filled as on ongoing spiritual discipline. They have fallen into the same trap coming at it from different places.

My observation is that both Pentecostals and Charismatics use the phrase “Filled with the Spirit” in two distinct ways, but they don’t seem to realise that they are using it in two different ways. They use it:
1. In the correct sense, to describe the experience described in Chapter 22. But this usage is relatively rare in these circles.
2. More commonly they use the phrase in the sense of, “Having had the Pentecostal Experience”. This is a wrong usage of the phrase.

Why do they fall into the same trap?
Because they think that there is only one thing happening here in the Acts 2 /Pentecostal experience –which can be variously called the “Baptism in the Spirit” or “the Filling of the Spirit”. But in actual fact there are two distinct works of the Spirit happening:
1. A Baptism in the Spirit in which we are immersed in the Spirit, I go into the Spirit and
2. A Filling with the Spirit in which the Spirit goes into me and fills me.
The confusion of these two and their identification leads to people being robbed of all God has for them.

But the confusions are eliminated when we recognise that on the day of Pentecost there were two distinct works of the Holy Spirit happening:
1. The Disciples were baptised in the Spirit and
2. They were also filled with the Spirit.
They were, so to speak, glasses that were right way up that were immersed in the Spirit so that they were immersed, indwelt and filled at the same time. The Baptism and indwelling being permanent gifts of the covenant, the filling being a temporary feature of their experience.

Summary:
There is a difference between being “Filled with the Spirit” and being “Baptised in the Spirit”.
You can have experienced the Baptism in the Spirit and not now be Filled with the Spirit.
You can be Spirit- filled and have never experienced the Baptism in the Spirit.

What are the differences between the Baptism and the Filling of the Spirit?

1. Baptism, by its very nature, is an initiation. This means that one can only be baptised in the Spirit once. It is illogical to think it can happen more than once. The filling of the Spirit, however, can be lost and regained; hence we can be filled with the Spirit many times. The ideal is to remain in that state all the time but no one ever maintains that standard. The way Conservative theology has stated this is with the phrase: “One Baptism, many fillings”.

2. The Baptism in the Spirit is part of the covenant gift of the Spirit, along with the indwelling Spirit. Thus it is a gift. It comes to us because of Christ’s work, not because of our own. The filling of the Spirit, however, is not a covenant gift. The covenant gift is the indwelling Spirit and this should lead us to be Spirit filled. But the filling is dependent on our obedience – on our work.

3. Because the baptism in the Spirit is a gift, once we have received it we cannot lose it.Like all the gifts of God, he doesn’t take them back (Romans 11:29). In this way the baptism in the Spirit is like the indwelling Spirit. Once the Spirit of God takes up residence in us we cannot “lose” him. But the Filling of the Spirit is different – it can be lost.

4. The baptism and indwelling of the Spirit have certain effects in our lives and these cannot be lost. The baptism is a gift of power and authority for service. Once we have it God will never take it away. But the filling of the Spirit is reflected in godly character, the fruit of the Spirit, and when we lose the filling of the Spirit we also lose this.

5. The Baptism in the Spirit is to do with power for service (Acts 1:8). The Filling of the Spirit is to do with the character of Christ being manifest in us.


THE TWO STAGE THEORY OF RECEIVING THE SPIRIT:

Conservative Evangelical theology has typically held that we receive the Spirit at conversion and as such this can only happen once.

With the rise of Pentecostalism (in the early 1900s) a strong teaching arose that there are two experiences of the Spirit which every Believer can have, namely:
(i) Being born again, resulting in the Indwelling Spirit.
(ii) Being Baptised in the Spirit, resulting in a gift of power for service and living.

This idea of the two-fold gift of the Spirit was not new with Pentecostalism, in fact leading evangelists like Moody, Torrey, Finney, Wesley, and others, had a similar teaching. However they tended to call the second experience a FILLING of the Spirit. The distinctive differences between their approach and Pentecostalism were threefold:

(i) Pentecostals called this experience the Baptism of the Spirit, thus implying some Christians were Baptised in the Spirit and some weren't. This had been done by some others beforehand, however, so it was not totally novel and was not the cause of the reactions.
(ii) Pentecostals stated that speaking in tongues was the evidence of having this experience of the Spirit. This really caused a reaction.
(iii) Pentecostals developed a teaching out of Acts to demonstrate this two phase experience of the Spirit, maintaining that there are several episodes in Acts which demonstrate this two phase interpretation.

It was these three which became elements of debate.

The Acts Experiences: Do they support a two-stage experience of the Sprit?

There are two clear groups of scriptures, those where the Spirit is clearly received at conversion, and those which appear to raise difficulties.


(a) Holy Spirit Clearly Given at Conversion.

(1) Acts 2:38,39. The Converts of the Day of Pentecost.

The implication is clear - and we must assume it was true for them.

(2) Acts 10:44. The House of Cornelius.

(3) Acts 16:34. The Philippian Jailer.

"filled with joy" - indicating the presence of the Spirit.

(b) Difficult Passages.

(1) Acts 2:1-4. The 120.

The Pentecostal interpretation: The disciples received the Spirit in two stages, once in John 20:22, and here in Acts 2.

In examining these accounts some doubt must be shed on that interpretation, and even if it is correct it is no guide for us.

John 20:21,22.
“Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.”

(a) In fact the meaning of John 20:22 is not clear. The Greek is literally: "receive ye holy spirit". It is capable of two interpretations:

(i) "Receive ye (the) Holy Spirit" i.e. They received the person of the Holy Spirit - which is how most interpreters understand it. Jesus breathing on them could suggest this, as in Greek and Hebrew the word for wind, breath, spirit is the same.

Hence accepting this interpretation it is understood by Pentecostals to mean the disciples were indwelt by the Spirit at this point. The promise of the Baptism of the Spirit was clearly time restricted by Jesus (Acts 1:5-8) to the Day of Pentecost, so could not have been included here.

This interpretation is theologically difficult as:
* The indwelling Spirit is also part of the New Covenant, the promise of the Father, which was not given until Pentecost. Actually the indwelling Spirit was the new thing coming with the New Covenant – the experience of the Spirit coming “on” people was quite common in the OT. If anything was going to be linked to the timing of Pentecost then the “in” relationship should be, not the “on” relationship.
* Nor is it clear why the gift of the Spirit in this event should be limited to only the indwelling Spirit and not include the Baptism. There is nothing in the text to limit it to only that, it is only the need of a particular theory to have it refer to the indwelling which causes it to be limited in this way.
* Christ's own words in John 15:26,27 & 16:13-15 looking forward to Pentecost strongly suggest that he had no idea of a special "gift of the Spirit" before Pentecost for the Eleven. John's gospel would hardly contradict itself!
* Jesus breathed “on” them, not “in” them and this would suggest that any gift of the Spirit received at this point of time would be an “on” relationship, not the indwelling.

(ii) "Receive ye (a) holy spirit"
I.e. their human spirit was consecrated (made holy) and set apart to God in preparation for the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Theologically this is easier to take, and the words/breathing of Jesus is then simply seen as a creative act, creating this consecrated spirit.

Hence it would not be wise to argue too dogmatically from this passage for a two-stage experience of the Spirit.

(b) Even if it did mean "the Holy Spirit" then it would not necessarily suggest that WE could receive the Spirit in two stages, one at conversion, another in "the Baptism".

The 120 lived in a particular historical situation which can never be repeated. They lived in a watershed between the two ages. The Law had passed away on the Cross, but the new age of the Spirit had not yet dawned with Pentecost. Their experience was conditioned by this.

The gift of the Spirit, Indwelling and Baptism, was a promise for the New Age, for the New Covenant, so it could not be experienced until the New Age came into being. The timing of this was governed by OT prophecy concerning the day of Pentecost.

If we follow this line of understanding then we have to conclude that the disciples could not receive either the Indwelling or Baptism of the Spirit until Pentecost BECAUSE OT PROPHECY ENSURED THAT THOSE EXPERIENCES WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM UNTIL PENTECOST.

Hence if they did receive some form of gift of the Spirit in John 20 they "jumped the gun", and their experience has to be considered as an exceptional case, and it is not valid to draw conclusions concerning ourselves from it.

However since Pentecost the whole of the gift of the Spirit, the Promise of the Father, is given automatically to every child of God at new birth. It is part of the RIGHT of every child of God under the New Covenant. This the plain scriptures we have looked have above have demonstrated.

Hence the supposed two stage reception in the case of the 120, even if it happened, cannot be used to argue for a similar two stage reception in our case, or for the practice of "tarrying" to receive the Spirit.

(2) Acts 8:4-17 - The Samaritans.

We looked at this passage in Chapter 18 and discovered there that the position is not as simple as one would like. Refer there for the discussion. My conclusion is that it does not support a two-stage reception of the Spirit in the way Pentecostals would like.

(3) Acts 9:17 - The Conversion of Paul.

We looked at this passage in Chapter 15 and discovered there that Paul did not, in fact, become a Christian until Ananias came to him. So this does not support a two-stage theory of the Spirit.

(4) Acts 19:1-6:- The Ephesian Disciples.

We looked at this passage in Chapter 15 and found that these “disciples” were not Christian disciples before Paul came to them but disciples of John the Baptist so this does not support a two-stage theory of receiving the Spirit.

From this survey we can see that there is no justification for arguing for a two-stage reception of the Spirit from Acts. However that is not all that can be said from these passages, as we shall see later. However the point is clear - the Spirit is received at conversion.

We have to conclude that the Pentecostal exegesis of Acts is sadly lacking. It is easy to see why they might come to the conclusions that they have, it would be easy to do the same. But in all honesty the two-stage interpretation falls short.

Summary of Errors in Pentecostal Doctrine:

1. In identifying the Pentecostal Experience (which is nearly always had subsequent to becoming a Christian) with the Baptism in the Spirit in the way that traditional Pentecostal doctrine does they deny the plain teaching given above that all Christians are baptised in the Spirit – at least in some sense or other. It is this position that has produced much of the Conservative Evangelical reaction. The Pentecostal view – at least how it is normally stated – is wrong, unscriptural.
The fundamental common doctrinal error of both Pentecostals and Charismatics is the insistence that you can be a Christian and not have the Baptism in the Spirit. Scripturally this is impossible.
On a Doctrinal level we have to say every Christian is baptised in the Spirit.

2 The tendency to identify the Baptism in the Spirit with the Filling of the Spirit leads to confusion as to the nature of both. Both Pentecostals and Charismatics fall into this trap. The net result is a belief that once you have had this “Pentecostal experience you are continuously filled with the Spirit from then on. This is not so.

3 This wrong doctrine right at the root of Pentecostalism leads to another error, as we have seen, namely the failure to seek to be continuously filled with the Spirit. Charismatics also fall into this trap.

4 In seeking to “prove” their doctrine, especially from Acts, they ignore the reasons why things happened the way they did and so come to faulty interpretations of events in Acts.

Their doctrine needs to be restated in a way that makes it scriptural if Conservative Evangelicals are to agree with them. It is this restatement that I am coming to. Remember, I have had this Pentecostal experience so am not opposed to it. What I am opposed to is unscriptural ways of describing it that, in the long run, end up robbing people of the fullness of what God wants for them. I will get there soon.

Note:
I haven’t kept up with all the books on this subject in recent years. One gets tired of rehearsing the same old arguments especially if one feels the conclusions are a bit faulty. Probably the best book I have read on the doctrinal aspects of the Baptism in the Spirit is:
J.D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Spirit.
It’s probably out of print now. But if you can find it, it is well thought out.

HOMEWORK.
You don’t need any – just getting through the chapter a couple of times and understanding it will take enough effort.

TRANSFORMER VERSE:
1 Corinthians 12:13.
“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”

PRAYER:
Father God, I thank you that you have made us all one. I thank you that through the gift of the Spirit you have transcended all racial and social barriers and brought us into one body in Christ. I thank you that we are all baptised in one Spirit and all given one Spirit to drink. I drink of you Spirit now, in Jesus name. Amen.