Baptism in The Holy Spirit
Baptism in The Holy Spirit
Baptism in The Holy Spirit
Title
Copyright
Core
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Note to Reader
References
Other Books
Baptism in the Holy Spirit
RANDY CLARK
Baptism in the Holy Spirit Kindle © Copyright 2011 Randy
Clark All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-937467-14-2
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from
HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright
© 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by
permission of Zondervan Publishing House.
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying and recording, or by any information
storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly
permitted in writing by the publisher. For more information on
how to order this book, permission requests, or for any other
materials that Global Awakening offers, please contact:
Apostolic Network of Global Awakening
1451 Clark Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
1-866-AWAKENING
www.globalawakening.com
Global Awakening
Core Message Series
Infant Baptism
The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal and Lutheran
group believes one is baptized in the Holy Spirit at the time of
infant baptism and that there is a renewed filling, or a stirring
up of the gift of the Holy Spirit, which one receives at
Confirmation.
At Conversion
The Evangelical, Reformed, Baptist, and Modern Methodist
group believes one is baptized in the Holy Spirit at the time of
conversion and there can be many subsequent fillings of the
Holy Spirit.
Subsequent to Conversion
The fourth group (i.e., Pentecostals) has two subgroups. Both,
however, see the baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent to
conversion. They believe conversion is when one is born
again, indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit. The baptism in the
Holy Spirit must be sought and is subsequent to conversion.
According to this fourth group it is not a simultaneous
experience.
As mentioned, the Pentecostals basically divide into two
subgroups. The first of the subgroups, with a holiness
background, sees three stages in the Christian experience: (1)
conversion, (2) sanctification, and (3) baptism in the Holy
Spirit. The second subgroup, with a more Baptist background,
has a two-stage view: (1) conversion, and (2) baptism in the
Holy Spirit. Sanctification is seen as progressive. The
Assemblies of God and the Apostolic Church are in this group
(Bruner 1970, 92, 323-341).
When we come to the subject of the “initial evidence” of the
baptism in the Holy Spirit, the Pentecostals, most Protestant
Charismatics, and some Roman Catholic Charismatics say that
“speaking in tongues” is the initial evidence of the baptism.
Evangelical Christian denominations tend to emphasize the
fruit of the Spirit, especially faith, hope, and love, as the
evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The third group, the
Holiness group, emphasizes the evidence of the “second
definite work of grace” as being perfected in love, giving power
to always resist temptation, and increased power to serve God
and man.
As I consider the teaching pertaining to the baptism in the
Holy Spirit, I shall not discuss at length the
Catholic/Sacramental understanding of the baptism in the Holy
Spirit. Neither shall I consider at length the Holiness
understanding. My emphasis will be to carefully consider the
difference between the Evangelical perspective and the
classical Pentecostal and most Protestant Charismatics’
perspective.
It is my position that there is truth in each of these camps, but
that each has tried to fit the witness of Scripture into its
particular system. An additional position will be presented
which is what I, and a growing number of other pastors, have
come to believe better reflects the witness of Scripture. Some
people call the position “Third Wave Theology”, but, there is
even diversity of opinion within this camp.
Finally, there are a growing number of people who hail from
non-Charismatic, conservative Evangelical backgrounds but
who have adopted certain classical Pentecostal practices such
as healing the sick, casting out demons, and receiving
prophetic revelations. Many of these people believe that the
so-called baptism in the Holy Spirit happens at conversion and
is not a second work of grace subsequent to the new birth.
They also believe that tongues is simply one of many spiritual
gifts and not the only evidence of a particular spiritual
experience. Many of these people still see themselves as
conservative Evangelicals, theologically and culturally, and
have sought to relate their experiences of the Holy Spirit’s
power to conservative Evangelical beliefs (Nathan and Wilson
1995, 11).
Chapter 2
Definitions of the Baptism
An Evangelical Definition
My former professor at The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Dr. Lewis Drummond, gives the following definition
of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This definition is an extremely
good representation of the Evangelical position, especially that
of the Southern Baptists:
This truth was first referred to by John the Baptist
(Mt. 3:11). Then it was confirmed by our Lord (Acts
1:4-5) with reference to the initial enduement of the
Spirit at Pentecost. Basically, it is the receiving of the
Spirit by the believer (Acts 2:38; 1 Corinthians 12:13).
It is analogous to “being made to drink into the one
Spirit.” It is thus experienced by all true believers. It
is also the act and experience whereby the believer is
united with Christ and incorporated into the Body of
Christ (1 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 3:27-28). Further, it involves
reception of power, since the Spirit is the powerful
presence of God in us (Acts 1:5, 8). It occurs at
conversion to all believers (Drummond 1975, 78)
(Emphasis mine).
A Pentecostal Definition
The following quotation is from the “Statement of Fundamental
Truths” of the Assemblies of God, with which most Protestant
and some Catholic Charismatics would agree:
All believers are entitled to and should ardently
expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father,
the Baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire, according to
the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the
normal experience of all in the early Christian Church.
With it comes the enduement of power for life and
service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in
the work of the ministry (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 8; 1
Corinthians 12:1-31.) This experience is distinct from
and subsequent to the experience of the new birth
(Acts 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9). With the
Baptism in the Holy Ghost come such experiences as
an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37-39;
Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43,
Heb. 12:28), an intensified consecration to God and
dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active
love for Christ, His word, and the lost (Mk. 16:20)
(Emphasis mine).
Chapter 3
The Evidence of the Baptism
Acts 2:1-13
These verses describe the disciples’ experience in the upper
room. They were saints of God who were saved by faith, just as
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and other justified believers in
the Old Testament. However, they were unique because they
lived in the interim time of the ministry of Jesus. The Holy Spirit
was prominent in preparation for Jesus’ ministry and upon
those who shared in his ministry, but, like John the Baptist,
they were still under the Old Covenant. The full experience of
the Holy Spirit in an abiding manner was not possible until the
New Covenant was established. This did not occur until the
Day of Pentecost. Since today we do not live our lives in two
dispensations or, in other words, under two covenants, the 120
disciples’ experience cannot be the model for our Christian
experience.
However, what are we to make of the eleven disciples who had
received the Holy Spirit on the night of the first resurrection
recorded in John 20:22? One cannot argue that Pentecost was
their reception of the Spirit. For these eleven, the experience
was subsequent. However, for the remainder of the 120, it
appears to have been simultaneous with the regenerating work
of the Spirit.
Acts 8:12-17
Acts 8:12 tells us that when the Samaritans “believed Philip as
he preached the good news of the Kingdom of God and the
name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and
women.” I want you to note they believed and were baptized.
Acts 8:14-17 tells us that the Apostles at Jerusalem sent Peter
and John to Samaria when they heard that the Samaritans had
“received the word of God.” Peter and John “prayed for them
that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen
on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they
received the Holy Spirit” (vv. 15-17).
On the surface this passage does seem to teach, at least the
possibility of, the baptism in the Holy Spirit being subsequent
to conversion, but questions still remain. Was this experience,
at the hands of the Apostles, their baptism in the Spirit
subsequent to conversion or was it their genuine conversion
with its correspondent simultaneous baptism in the Holy
Spirit?
Dr. James D.G. Dunn believes the latter. He believes Luke
means for us to understand that the Samaritans’ faith was
defective. He gives us two reasons for believing so. First, Luke
does not use the usual Greek word for “believe” in reference to
the Samaritans. Rather, he uses a different Greek word that
means “to believe” (intellectual assent), which is head
knowledge. It also means to agree intellectually with what has
been said. Hence, intellectual assent to propositional truth is a
defective belief because it does not involve the full
commitment of the person. Secondly, Dunn believes that Luke
intends to use Simon as a model for the Samaritans. Since
Simon’s faith was defective, so was the Samaritans’. (I find it
interesting that this argument of Simon being a model
indicating that the Samaritans’ faith was defective is later not
applied to Apollos and the Ephesian disciples. Consistency
would demand that this model idea would prove the Ephesian
disciples were really already Christian disciples like Apollos.
Dunn, however, is not consistent in applying his arguments
when they do not fit his system.)
Michael Green has noted that the word Luke used for “believe”
is used for the saving kind of belief in other biblical passages
and thus finds Dunn’s argument weak. I, too, believe this is the
weakest point in Dunn’s book. Here, the Pentecostal
perspective of subsequence is the most natural meaning of the
text in its context.
I believe God, in His sovereignty, withheld the Holy Spirit in
order to await the arrival of the Apostles from Jerusalem, in
order that they might see first hand God’s acceptance of non-
Jews into the infant Church. This was the purpose of visible
manifestations of the Holy Spirit, especially tongues, in the
early days of the Church. It was a visible sign of God’s
breaking down prejudicial barriers and accepting all men and
women into the church on the basis of repentance and faith
alone. Though tongues were not specifically mentioned in this
passage, some visible manifestation was present. The Bible
explicitly says that “when Simon saw that the Spirit was
given….” Some possible manifestations, which Simon might
have witnessed are shaking, trembling, and being slain in the
Spirit (cf., 8:18). I personally believe that if tongues were the
primary manifestation, Luke would have stated so in the writing
of the Book of Acts.
Acts 19:1-7
Finally, let us consider the case of the disciples at the city of
Ephesus. Again the Pentecostals find here a classic text that
seems to teach the baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience
subsequent to conversion. They see these disciples as
Christians, but do not believe they received the “baptism in the
Holy Spirit.” This is based upon the King James Version of
Acts 19:2. It reads, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
believed?” Dunn emphasizes that this is an inaccurate
translation, which has been corrected in the modern
translations. The proper translation reads, “Did you receive the
Holy Spirit when you believed?” When I first read Dunn’s
book, this argument convinced me, not being a Greek scholar
myself. Since that time, the New International Version has been
printed. In its footnote to Acts 19:2 it has “after” as a
possibility rather than “when.” I realize now that the modern
translations were completed since the beginning of the
Pentecostal movement. However, almost all of the translators
were not Pentecostal in their beliefs and experiences. Thus we
have a case of theology affecting translation. Either “when” or
“after” would be possibilities of reflecting the meaning of the
Greek word.
I thought it would be very interesting to see how this verse
was translated into other languages, as well as English prior to
1901. I found this so interesting that I called the library of The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and asked them to send
me the photocopies of English translations of this passage that
would have been written prior to 1901. I received photocopies
of four of the oldest English translations. They were written in
the 1500s prior to the King James Version. All of them
translated the word as “since” rather than “when.”
Dunn believes Paul’s question, “Did you receive the Holy
Spirit when you believed?” really was a test to see if these men
were Christians or not. The Apostolic preaching as recorded in
Acts always mentioned the Holy Spirit; note Peter’s
Pentecostal sermon in the second chapter of Acts. How could
these men have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and not
have heard of the Holy Spirit? I believe it would have been
very unlikely. Today’s preaching, however, would find this
omission of the Holy Spirit commonplace in much of the
Church.
According to Acts 19:3-5, men had been baptized by John the
Baptist but had not received Christian baptism. We know that
Luke did not reserve the word “disciple” for Christian disciples
only, for in his gospel he speaks of John the Baptist’s disciples
(Luke 7:18). Dunn believes they were the disciples of John the
Baptist. They received the Holy Spirit at the time of their
conversion, which was occasioned at the time of water baptism
and Paul’s laying on of hands. The tongues were present at the
time of conversion-initiation and not subsequent to it. It
should be taken into account that the term “conversion-
initiation” allows for the concept of subsequence from a
Pentecostal perspective because Pentecostals would not see
baptism in water as necessary for conversion though it would
certainly be a part of initiation into the local church.
It is not enough to hide behind the supposedly “correct”
translation of Scripture and precise biblical language pertaining
to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals and Charismatics
today, like their spiritual forerunners of the Holiness Movement
and the earliest Methodists, are to be praised for their
emphasis on the experience of the Spirit.
I am presently reflecting upon my study in this area. As I do
so, I recall Roman Catholic Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens’
language about “appropriating” the reality of our potential in
Christ. Arnold Bittlinger, a German Lutheran Charismatic
professor of Theology, believes:
Every Christian has been baptized in both [water and
spirit] or he or she is not a Christian in the full sense
of the word. In baptism one receives potentially
everything one will ever receive in Christ. But God’s
purpose in baptism must be actualized through the
appropriation of its potential in the life of the
individual Christian (Culpepper 1977, 59).
And again, from the non-Charismatic Southern Baptist
professor, Dr. Robert Culpepper:
It is better to speak incorrectly of a second blessing
or a second Pentecost and lay hold of the reality of
new life in Christ than to let the soundness of our
doctrine rob us of its substance (Culpepper 1977, 72).
One of the great New Testament scholars of our day, Gordon
Fee, has a wonderful chapter on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
in his book entitled Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New
Testament Hermeneutics. Chapter 7, “Baptism in the Holy
Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence”, is very
helpful in healing the divide between Evangelicals and
Pentecostals. Dr. Fee states:
The purpose of this present essay is to open the
question of separability and subsequence once
again, and (1) to suggest that there is in fact very
little biblical support for the traditional Pentecostal
position on this matter, but (2) to argue further that
this is of little consequence to the doctrine of the
baptism in the Holy Spirit, either as to the validity of
the experience itself or its articulation.” (Fee 1991,
106-107).
He states again,
“What I hope to show in the rest of this essay is that
the Pentecostals are generally right on target
biblically as to their experience of the Spirit. Their
difficulties arose from the attempt to defend it
biblically at the wrong point (Fee 1991, 108).
I find myself in total agreement with the position of Dr. Fee
when he writes:
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 the texts. The essential matter, after all, is neither
subsequence nor tongues, but the Spirit himself as a
dynamic, empowering presence; and there seems to
me to be little question that our way of initiation into
that -- through an experience of Spirit baptism -- has
biblical validity. Whether all must go that route seems
to me to be more moot; but in any case, the
Pentecostal experience itself can be defended on
exegetical grounds as a thoroughly biblical
phenomenon … I think it is fair to note that if there
is one thing that differentiates the early church
from its twentieth-century counterpart it is the level
of awareness and experience of the presence and
power of the Holy Spirit. Ask any number of people
of today from all sectors of Christendom to define or
describe Christian conversion or Christian life, and
the most noticeable feature of that definition would
be its general lack of emphasis on the active,
dynamic role of the Spirit.
It is precisely the opposite in the New Testament. The
Spirit is no mere addendum. Indeed, he is the sine
qua non, the essential ingredient, of Christian life.
Nor is he a mere datum of theology; rather, he is
experienced as a powerful presence in their lives (Fee
1991, 110-111) (Italic emphasis Fee’s, bold emphasis
mine).
Dr. Fee sets out to indicate (by looking at the biblical texts to
see reception of the Spirit as something that was part and
parcel of their conversion experience) that this reception was
inclusive of receiving the Spirit accompanied with visible
manifestations of His presence.
Indeed, it was the Pentecostals’ ability to read the
New Testament existence so correctly, along with
their frustration over the less-than-adequate norm of
anemia that they experienced in their own lives and in
the church around them, that led to seeking for the
New Testament experience in the first place. The
question, of course, is, if that was the norm, what
happened to the church in the succeeding
generations? It is in pursuit of that question that an
understanding of the Pentecostal experience as
separate and subsequent lies (Fee 1991, 116).
Dr. Fee raises the questions whether or not the Pentecostal
experience must be seen as not biblical because it does not fit
the biblical pattern, or if they need to reinterpret the Bible to fit
their experience. To both these questions he answers NO! How
then are we to let the Bible speak clearly what it says, and also
validate the Pentecostals’ experience of the Spirit? He writes:
On the one hand, the typical evangelical or reformed
exegete who disallows a separate and subsequent
experience simply must hide his or her head in the
sand, ostrichlike, to deny the reality–the biblical
reality–of what has happened to so many Christians.
On the other hand, the Pentecostal must be wary of
reforming the biblical data to fit his or her own
experience. The solution, it seems to me, lies in two
areas: (1) An examination of the components of
Christian conversion as they emerge in the New
Testament, and (2) an analysis of what happened to
Christian experience once the church entered into a
second and third generation of believers.
Without belaboring any of the points in detail, it
seems to me that the components of Christian
conversion that emerge from the New Testament data
are five:
1. The actual conviction of sin, with the consequent
drawing of the individual to Christ. This, all agree, is
the prior work of the Holy Spirit that leads to
conversion.
2. The application of the atonement in the person’s
life, including the forgiveness of the past, the
canceling of the debt of sin. I would tend to put
repentance here as a part of the response to the prior
grace of God, which is also effected by the Spirit.
3. The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that gives
new birth, that brings forth the new creation.
4. The empowerment for life, with openness to gifts
and the miraculous, plus obedience to mission. This
is the component that Pentecostals want to make
subsequent to numbers 1, 2, 3, and the Protestant
tradition wants to limit simply to fruit and growth, but
tends at times seemingly to omit altogether.
5. The believer’s response to all this is baptism in
water, the offering of oneself back to God for life and
service in his new age community, the church. This
act obviously carries with it the rich symbolism of
elements 2 and 3 (forgiveness and regeneration), but
in itself effects neither.
The crucial item in all of this for the early church was
the work of the Spirit; and element 4, the dynamic
empowering dimension with gifts, miracles, and
evangelism (along with fruit and growth), was normal
part of their expectation and experience. (Fee 1991,
117-118)
Fee points out that the problem is that point 4, the dynamic
reality of the Spirit became lost in the subsequent history of
the church. A condition arose which was very different from
the experiences of the New Testament believers.
Christian life came to consist of conversion without
empowering, baptism without obedience, and grace
without love. Indeed the whole Calvinist-Arminian
debate is predicated on this reality, that people can
be in the church, but evidence little or nothing of the
work of the Spirit in their lives (Fee 1991, 118).
Few would argue that this is the case, but how did this
situation develop?
There are two main reasons for this development. The first is
that the New Testament was written to first generation
Christians who were baptized as adults, thus the issue of
second and third generations wasn’t addressed. The
conversions for the succeeding generations of those who grew
up in Christian homes would not be so dramatic or life
changing. The dynamic experiential nature of the conversion
experience would be the first to go. (Fee 1991, 118)
The second reason, and most devastating, was the connection
between water baptism and the reception of the Spirit. With the
eventual acceptance of the practice of infant baptism the
dynamic experiential nature of conversion was lost. This would
prove to be the case for most of Christian history, but it was
not the situation in the Bible. All the pietistic movements since
the Montanists to the Toronto Blessing must be understood as
a reaction to the sub-normal life of the Christians in the church
in comparison to the life in the Spirit that is depicted in the
Bible (Fee 1991, 119).
It is precisely out of such a background that one is to
understand the Pentecostal movement with its deep
dissatisfaction with life in Christ without life in the
Spirit and their subsequent experience of a mighty
baptism in the Spirit. If their timing was off as far as
the biblical norm was concerned, their experience
itself was not. What they were recapturing for the
church was the empowering dimension of life in the
Spirit as the normal Christian life.
That this experience was for them usually a separate
experience in the Holy Spirit and subsequent to their
conversion is in itself probably irrelevant. Given their
place in the history of the church, how else might it
have happened? Thus the Pentecostal should
probably not make a virtue out of necessity. At the
same time, neither should others deny the validity of
such experience on biblical grounds, unless, as some
do, they wish to deny the reality of such an
empowering dimension of life in the Spirit altogether.
But such a denial, I would argue, is actually an
exegeting not of the biblical texts but of one’s own
experience in this later point in church history and a
making of that experience normative. I for one like
the biblical norm better; at this point the Pentecostals
have the New Testament clearly on their side (Fee
1991, 119) (Italic emphasis Fee’s, bold emphasis
mine).
The above quotes can be summarized as follows; the
Pentecostals view of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to be the
evidence of speaking in tongues at a subsequent experience to
their conversion, is based upon weak biblical support. The
Evangelicals have done an even greater injustice to the biblical
text by almost totally missing the nature of Christian life as a
life of vibrant, dynamic, supernatural life in the Holy Spirit. The
necessity for a subsequent experience is the Spirit is not
necessitated by biblical texts but rather their place in Christian
history, because for many people their baptism in the Spirt was
subsequent.
I believe Evangelicals owe a great debt to the Pentecostals.
They, along with the Charismatic Movement that followed later,
have been virtually alone in emphasizing that the charismata,
grace gifts, are still the birthright of the Church. They rejected
dispensationalism’s view that the gifts of the Spirit were dying
out with either the death of the Apostles or the canonization of
the New Testament.
Today, many within the Evangelical camp are listening to their
brother Pentecostals and Charismatics brothers. We cannot
deny the genuine accounts of the “sign gifts” in operation
today. The Charismatics particularly have left the “saw-dust”
trail and have entered the graduate departments of our
universities. Much of what they say about the gifts is well
balanced and biblical. It is actually more accurate than
Evangelical interpretations of the gifts. What I am excited
about today is the possibility of Evangelicals being open to
expecting and experiencing the gifts of the Holy Spirit while not
having to identify with the Pentecostal interpretation of the
“baptism in the Holy Spirit”; nor what I believe has been a
legalistic-Pharisaic attitude within much of Pentecostalism. We
must, as God does, look at the motive behind this legalism
within Pentecostalism. I believe it is motivated by a
misunderstanding of Christ’s understanding of holiness
coupled with a deep love for Him. Therefore, let us be
temperate in our condemnation of this legalism. In reality, this
legalism seems to be passing away, and it must also be noted
that there was also legalism on the part of many Evangelical
groups at the turn of the century.
Furthermore, let us not forget the multiple examples of great
men and women of God who spoke of an experience, call it
what you may, subsequent to conversion which radically
changed their lives and made them victorious: men like John
Wesley, D.L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, and Charles Finney.
I personally sense my inadequacy in the area of ministry and
relationship to the Holy Spirit. David (Paul) Yonggi Cho and
the late John Wimber have emphasized our need to be intimate
with the Holy Spirit. Mike Bickle calls this “developing a secret
history with God.” This is the deep need of the Church today.
Chapter 4
Appropriating the Baptism
Let me state that I believe the Bible does not fit either the
Pentecostal or the Evangelical systems regarding the baptism
in the Holy Spirit, both are too narrow. I believe the same God
that did not make two fingerprints or two snowflakes alike did
not intend to make our experience of his Spirit to be the same
for everyone. When we look back at the passages in Acts we
find that the people were baptized in the Holy Spirit at a prayer
meeting with tongues (Acts 2) and at another prayer meeting
without tongues (Acts 4:31). Sometimes the Spirit came after
baptism with the laying on of hands, with no tongues
occurring (Acts 8). At other times, we are not told the
particulars of how or when someone was baptized with the
Spirit (Acts 9). Baptism in the Spirit can occur at the time of
conversion, before water baptism, with tongues and prophecy
accompanying it (Acts 10). Or it can also occur after water
baptism with the laying on of hands accompanied by tongues
and prophecy. There does appear to be at work here a God who
likes diversity, and I suggest we need to learn to like diversity. I
believe if we could learn to appreciate this biblical diversity, it
would enable us to appreciate the diversity within the body of
Christ, which Satan has used to divide us.
In my church we honor and welcome people who have had
experiences reflecting this New Testament diversity. We do not
try to convince them that their experience is not valid, or is not
normative. Rather, we emphasize that God is free to baptize us
and fill us with his Spirit in whatever way he so chooses. In
this manner we can find unity in the midst of diversity.
As a matter of fact my emphasis has not been so much on the
experience of being baptized in the Spirit as it has been on the
fruit of having an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. The
reason I have encouraged the people of my church not to ask
someone if they have been baptized in the Spirit is that the
answer doesn’t really tell one much. What do I mean by this?
Well, it’s like asking someone if they have had a wedding. They
may answer, “Yes,” but you don’t know anything about the
relationship. They may be living in hell in the marriage or in
marital bliss. They may have had a wedding, but are now
divorced, widowed, or separated. One does not really know
much about the relationship by asking someone if they have
had a wedding. Rather ask them about how intimate they are
with their mate and if they love him/her more today than when
they first married.
In like manner, people could have had an experience, call it
baptism in the Holy Spirit, years ago but now they are cold,
lukewarm, or backslidden, or they may be passionately in love
with God. Focus on the relationship. In this way people cannot
hide behind an experience of the past. It is not enough to have
had a baptism in the Holy Spirit; we must continue to be filled
with the Holy Spirit.
Not only does the Bible reflect diversity of experiences
pertaining to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but also the history
of the Church does. I must believe that Jesus was right when
he made the evidence of the Holy Spirit to be the reception of
power (Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8). I believe Arthur Blesset was
right when he told us we should emphasize the “red,” referring
to the words of Jesus in the Bible. When I read the history of
the Church I find men who had received power and then had a
powerful influence upon the Church and society. Some of these
people, like Francis of Assisi, Ignatius Loyola, and Mother
Teresa, were Roman Catholic; others like George Whitefield
and Billy Graham were/are Reformed; others like John Wesley,
E. Stanley Jones, and Charles Finney were Arminians; and still
others like Maria Woodworth-Etter, John G. Lake, Smith
Wigglesworth, T.L. Osborn, Oral Roberts, Omar Cabrera, Carlos
Annacondia, Claudio Freidzon, Luis Palau, and David Yonggi
Cho are Pentecostals. I cannot believe that the non-
Pentecostals mentioned above were not baptized with the Holy
Spirit because they did not speak in tongues, and that others
who have spoken in tongues, but who have had little impact
upon the Church and society have been baptized in the Spirit.
If power is a major purpose and evidence of the baptism in the
Holy Spirit, then I must acknowledge both Church history and
the Bible indicate that people can be baptized in the Holy Spirit
with diverse experiences in how they received this baptism. See
the book, Powerlines, which records the expressions of the
Spirit in many famous Evangelicals.
Billy Graham concludes his book, The Holy Spirit with this
illustration:
Over 100 years ago, two young men were talking in
Ireland. One said, “The world has yet to see what
God will do with a man fully consecrated to Him.”
The other man meditated on that thought for weeks.
It so gripped him that one day he exclaimed, “By the
Holy Spirit in me I’ll be that man.” Historians now say
that he touched two continents for Christ. His name
was Dwight L. Moody. (Graham 1978, 220)
Let us strive to be spiritual leaders of the Church, willing to pay
the price of putting His Kingdom before our own. May we
desire to have many repeated fillings of the Spirit in order that
we might be known as men and women full of the Holy Spirit.
Let us humble ourselves before God that he might lift us up.
Let us truly acknowledge our personal weakness that we might
turn from self and the flesh to Christ and the power of his
Spirit. Let us love one another as mutual leaders in his Church
and pray for each other, confess our sins to each other and
carry each other’s burdens. Let us quit fighting each other and
fight the real enemy, Satan, who accuses the brethren.
Chapter 6
Case Studies of Baptism
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: