Possibly no other doctrinal issue  has had such a great effect on the lives of Believers in the Christian church for the past 50 years as has the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. Conservative, fundamental, and evangelical denominations have had to take a second look and examine the validity of this movement and how it impacts their own churches. The  Pentecostal denomination is one of if not the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. and that demands our attention. I  believe that we can no longer just cast them aside as an unwanted child of the Father. So over the next couple of weeks we will examine some of the doctrinal positions held by the Pentecostals , responses made by non-Pentecostals and then state my  personal position on these issues.
 

        There are at least 5 significant issues that must be discussed . They include:
1. Definition of the term,
2. When the Baptism of the HS occurs in the life of the Believer,
3. The relevance of the progression in Acts 2,8,10,19,
4. The relationship of the Baptism of the HS to tongues
5. The difference  between Baptism in the Holy Spirit and being  filled with the H.S.

1. Definition of Baptism of the Holy Spirit

QUESTION: What is the Baptism of/in the Holy Spirit?

         Baptism in the H.S., Baptism of the H.S., Baptism in Christ, the gift of the H.S., to non-pentecostals  these are synonymous terms.  Greek preposition  en  is an ambigious term which means 'within, by means of, in, of'. Non-pentacostal evangelicals agree that at conversion the believer is baptized (in,by,of,) the H.S., that at that time they receive the gift of the H.S. and these are the same event. There is a permanent indwelling of the H.S. in the life of the believer. The Spirit is what marks the beginning of the Believers life.' (Fee, 178) The idea is that without the indwelling of the H.S. , there is no Christian experience.

         Pentecostals have a different view. Bruner states that  to say one is baptized in the H.S. is the same as saying; to be filled with, to receive, to be sealed by, to be anointed with. (Bruner, 59)  He states that Pentecostals prefer baptism in the H.S.  because  he beilieves that while every Christian has at conversion been baptized by/of the H.S. not every Christian has yet to be baptized by Christ  in or with the H.S.   To put it more simply he states that  the Spirit has baptized every Believer into Christ (conversion) the Spirit has not baptized every Believer into the Spirit (Pentecost). (Bruner, 60)

Question: What does it mean to be 'spirit filled'?

         Spirit filled to Pentecostals  means that the individual has been blessed with a 2nd baptism by the HS and has now received power for mission. That this power is available to all who receive the fullness of the Spirit at it's 2nd work, baptism in the H.S. They further believe that the permanent indwelling of the Spirit does not occur until this 2nd work  of the H.S. (Bruner, 70). This 2nd baptism is responsible for bringing to the believer miraculous powers, gifts, abilities and emotional resources. It brings the ability for spiritual healing, speaking in an unknown tongue, prophesy, leadership, exuberant emotion and other gifts needed for the equipping for ministry.

         Pentecostals feel that being 'filled with the Spirit' (the second Baptism) is something we are commanded to be (Eph. 5:18) and something we are to pray for and seek diligently. Above all the Pentecostals look to the poverty of the spiritual experience of many professing and water baptized christians as proof that something more is needed than just conversion to live a Spirit empowered and filled life.

Question: Let's talk about this.
         What is positive about how the Pentecostals  view the Baptism of/in the HS?
         What problems do you have with the Pentecostal view of Baptism in/of the HS?

         Personally, I feel the Pentecostals are weak on this position. I believe that there is far too much emphasis on the prepositions in, by, with.  1Cor. 12:13 is pretty clear that we were all baptized into one body.  N.T. usage seems to show that they are all synonymous terms. I also believe that our indwelling of the H.S. is at conversion is permanent and is necessary for our salvation. (2 Cor. 1:21-22, Jn. 14:17, 1 Cor. 12:3, Jn. 3:5, Rom. 8:9)
On these positions I stand with the non-Pentecostals.

         I do, sort of, agree with their  'power in mission' as a separate part of the Christian experience. However I do not associate it with the baptism in the H.S. I associate it with a 'filling' of the Spirit which we will discuss later. I also believe that the Pentecostals are right in their perception of the anemic, spiritually weak  chiristians who make up many of our non-pentecostal churches today. However the problem is not a 2nd baptism but a realization of the power that is alreay within us and a desire to tap into that power for the building up of the Kingdom of God.

Definition: Permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit into the life of the repentant and converted believer. This is a one time event and all who are believers have    experienced this baptism. The Baptism of the HS brings the believer into contact with the resources provided by God for ministry, personal growth and   the building up the the Church. The baptism of the HS is essential to the new    birth of the believer. Without it, one is not truly saved.

2. When Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs in the life of the Believer.

Question: When is one baptized in the H.S.?

         The answer to this question lies in what position you take on the previous discussion on the definition of the term. To non-Pentecostalists, baptism in the H.S. occurs at conversion. George Eldon Ladd  states that the baptism  with/in the H.S. is a once-for-all event occurring when one believes in Christ (conversion). (Ladd, 384)

         Pentecostals like Bruner state that the baptism in the H.S. is an event subsequent to conversion in the life of the Believer. Bruner states that the major source for this Pentecostal doctrine is the book of Acts. (Bruner, 61) Pentecostals see Acts as a history of what happens in the life of the Believer. Pentecostals point to Pentecost as the norm for the Christian experience.  They state that  the disciples were already in a saved state (Christian) and that Pentecost was a 2nd work of the H.S. in their lives. It was the full reception of the H.S. in their lives and that this set the precedence for all similar experience and sequence among other Christians. (Bruner, 63)

Question: What do you think about this?
        Does baptism in the HS happen at conversion or is it subsequent to conversion when the Believer has given over full control of his life to God?
         Is the book of Acts and what is taught there NORMATIVE of all  Christian at all times or is it DESCRIPTIVE of some Christian at that time?

         Once again, I must take the non-Pentecostal position on this.
    First, I do see the baptism of the H.S. as occurring simultaneously with conversion. It is through the baptism of the H.S. that the Spirit indwells us. It is this indwelling that justifies, regenerates, sanctifies and causes our adoption in Christ. One cannot be a Believer without the indwelling of the H.S., the baptism of the H.S. in his life.
    Secondly, I, as well as most non-Pentecostals, view the Books of Acts as transitory in the salvation  history of God's redemptive plan for mankind. (Erickson, 880)

        Therefore, what happened at Pentecost and in the succeeding chapters of Acts is not normative for all believer  throughout history.

         There is a discrepancy between non-Pentecostals on whether the disciples were Believers before Pentecost.

Question: Were the disciples Believers before pentecost?

         Dunn , a non-pentecostal states that they were not. He believes that there were not NT 'Christians' until Pentecost. (Dunn, 44). I, and others, would differ with Dunn on this point. I believe that there were believers before Pentecost  (John 20:22) and that Pentecost was a 'filling' of the H.S. for power and mission to those who already believed as well as a sign to unbelievers.

Pentecost and Tongues

        The Pentecost phenomenon. Was it a miracle of speech or hearing? Did the disciples speak in different languages so that the various people groups could understand them (miracle of speech)? The problem is that while some heard the message, others thought they were drunk, which seems to imply that some miraculously understood the ecstatic speech of the disciples while others thought it was gibberish. (Miracle of hearing)

Question:  Read Acts 2:1-13 What do you think?
       Was is a miracle of speech (tongues) or a miracle of hearing?

        There is also a question whether the tongues at Pentecost and later in Acts is the same tongues mentioned in Paul's writings. That question will be more fully developed later .  It seems that since the tongues in Acts  needed no interpreters, that what was said was intelligible to all in attendance. (A known language) This would again contribute to the theory that these events were signs of a particular work of the H.S. to a particular people.

         The manifestation of tongues with the baptism in the H.S. was to unite the various groups of people under the banner of the Church. (Jews, Samaritans, Greeks and all others) And to show to the whole world the outworking of the great commission in  Acts 1:8.

(The REVERSAL MOTIF and Pentecost being a reversal of the Tower of Babel.)  Gen. 11:1-10

Background
         In the primeval events of Genesis this is the representation of men and women in open rebellion against God. The were told after the flood not to live in one place but to fill the earth. (Gen. 9:1) The families grew into nations and chose instead to come together. They believed they could rule the earth as God if they were all in one place. The attempt to become like gods was seen in the city of Babel founded by Nimrod descendent of Ham who was cursed by God.

     Tower of Babel was the precursor of the ancient Babylonian Ziggurat. It was a pagan temple built 'with it's top reaching into heaven'. The intent was so the gods could travel down the steps and have intercourse with  humans. (Nephilim  Gen. 6, Num. 13) Babel is linked as a symbol of the pride of man and with the confusion and broken fellowship between men and nations when separated from God. God intended it's effects to be reversed in His final kingdom.    Here God confused the languages (real languages) so that they could not be one, He forced them to separate from one another to accomplish His purpose.

        Pentecost is the reversal of this act of God. Thru the humility of the followers of Christ, God ushered in a new era with His people. He now would unite them through the power of the HS. This was visibly seen by the tongues of fire over the disciples and in the Pentecost event of languages.

Action: Read Acts 2, 8, 10, 19  and get the main idea behind those chapters.

Question: What is it saying about the HS and the believer?  Do you see a pattern developed?

3. The relevance of the progression in Acts 2,8,10,19

         Pentecostals see Acts 2:1-4 as the norm for the Christian church and that is repeatable in the lives of current Believers.  Because they see Acts 2,8,10,19 as basically historical and therefore normative as a pattern for Christian life, they call these other occurrences 'Pentecostal experiences'. It is on  this basis that they conclude that they can and are to be repeated today.  These, to Pentecostals are all examples of how there was a delay in the receiving of the H.S. after there was conversion. They are part of the 'Pentecostal Experience'. (Ervin, 27) There was initial belief, conversion and baptism with water. Later there was the laying on of hands and the baptism in the H.S. This is proof of subsequent work of the H.S.

ACTS 2

QUESTION: What happened here? How was the HS manifested?
                      What was the relationship of receiving the HS and Conversion?

         -Noise from heaven like a rushing wind.
         -Tongues of fire over each head of the 120 disciples.
         -All were 'filled' with the HS
         -Began to speak with 'other' tongues: known languages.

      Since they were already Believers and had received the HS from Jesus himself (Jn. 20:22) this outpouring of the HS was subsequent to conversion. It would seem it was not a 'baptism' but a filling (vs. 4)

ACTS 8

QUESTION: What happened here? How was the HS manifested?
                    What was the relationship of receiving the HS and Conversion?

 Samaritans,Philip, Peter and John
      -Believed the preaching of the God News about the KOG and the name of  Jesus and were baptized with water.
      -Peter and John (Apostles) went laid hands on them and they were receiving  the HS

 Philip and the Ethiopian
      -Philip preached Jesus to him.
      -Believe with all your heart you may be baptized by water.
      -He did believe and he was  baptized.
      -Philip left the Ethiopian.

             There was no mention of tongues with either the Samaritans or the Ethiopian.
             There was no mention of a 'baptism' or the need to lay hands upon the Ethiopian

     Some non Pentecostals state that the Samaritans  in Acts 8 were not actually Christians because their faith was deficient. (Dunn, 63) They need to say this in order to keep to their theory of baptism in the H.S. being simultaneous with conversion. But I think that this argument is weak. It seems that from every reading of these passages, that the individuals  were in fact true Believers. Erickson states that because of the transitory nature of the book of Acts,  these individuals did receive the H.S. later, after conversion. He saw many of them as the last of the OT believers through faith in God. (Erickson, 880)

ACTS 9

         Not on your reading list but is important to the topic. Interesting enough, the Pentecostals leave this passage out of their proof for Baptism and tongues as subsequent to conversion.
      -Paul sees a vision of Jesus on the road  and is blinded
      -Goes to Ananias house and fasts and prays
      -Ananias lays his hands on Paul and his sight is restored.
      -Paul was 'filled ' with the HS and regained his sight.
      -He gets baptized with water.
      -He breaks his fast.
      -He begins to preach Jesus.

QUESTION: What happened here? How was the HS manifested?
                      What was the relationship of receiving the HS and Conversion?

         Interesting there is no mention of Paul's 'salvation experience'. What did he believe? Was the name of Jesus preached to him? The circumstances of his belief are not mentioned. There was no 'baptism with the HS, no tongues.  this is unlike any of the other 'pentecost experiences.

ACTS 10

QUESTION: What happened here? How was the HS manifested?
                     What was the relationship of receiving the HS and Conversion?

     -Peter preaches the Gospel of JC.
     -While Peter was still speaking the HS fell upon all who listened.
     -Speaking with tongues and exaulting God.
     -They were baptized by water.

         Interesting again that there was no mention of their belief or acceptance but the spirit coming upon them even before they had a chance to respond. Here they were not 'baptized with/on/in the HS but the HS 'fell upon them'. The giving of the HS seemed to be simultaneous with their conversion/belief.

ACTS 19

QUESTION: What happened here? How was the HS manifested?
                     What was the relationship of receiving the HS and Conversion?

      -The disciples of John believed
      -They did not even hear of the HS
      -They had been baptized by water by John the baptist
      -They were re-baptized in the name of Jesus.
      -Paul laid his hands on them and the HS came on them.
      -They spoke with tongues and prophesied.

         There is indication that they were not fully aware of who Jesus Was or what he had done. There was no mention of baptism with/in/by the HS. But tongues and prophecy accompanied the laying on of hands by an apostle.

QUESTION: Is there a pattern in these passages?
                     Is there a normative way the HS indwelled the individuals mentioned?
                    What implications can be made about these passages being normative for the church today?

ALTERNATIVE THOUGHT

         There is perhaps another way to see these passages in Acts. I believe that they represent a response to Acts 1:8. Jesus told His disciples that they would be His witnesses to all Jerusalem, Judea, all Samaria and to the utter most parts of the earth.

    Acts 2:1-4 was the witness of the Spirit to Jerusalem and Judea.
    Acts 8 was the witness of the Spirit to Samaria.
    Acts 10 was the witness of the Spirit to the Gentiles  (utter most past of the Earth).
    Acts 19 represents the last of the OT  believers who knew not the H.S. or what happened  in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

         These acts  were representative of all mankind and that salvation was open to all. So in actuality, these all are a Pentecost experience, to the different groups represented on the Earth in response to Jesus command in Acts 1:8.  They are historical in that sense. However, they were not representative of individual acts as the norm for all Believers. Ladd sees this progression in a similar vane. He states that the four groups represented in these passages are a now parts of the Church and that they represented their particular groups entrance into the Church. (Ladd, 384) I too can agree with this perspective.

ILL: Martin Lloyd Jones state that he is not happy with the sad state of the deadness of the church.  Those who believe the HS comes upon conversion are satisfied with what they have already experienced through salvation and this is all we are to attain to. He believes that throughout church history people have experienced a 'second experience' called 'baptism with the HS' and that it should be sought by all.

The internal evidence of the baptism with the HS
  -a deep sense of the glory of God
  -a sense of awe
  -an extraordinary feeling of assurance given by the HS

The external evidence of baptism with the HS
  -a changed facial appearance
  -Power in preaching and witnessing

How to attain this baptism
  -by not being satisfied with our present state
  -by being careful of our motives for wanting such power
  -by seeking to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and     strength
  -by prayer

 In all this MLJ is convcerned with revival, which he defines as the above experience falling upon a group of people.

4. The relationship of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to Tongues

         Is speaking in tongues the sign of baptism in the H.S.? Pentecostals would answer yes, others no.  Ervin states that 'in each instance, either  explicitly or implicitly, the baptism in the Spirit is accompanied by a unique manifestation of the Holy Spirit's presence, viz., speaking in tongues.' (Ervin, 53) He further states that ' if the speaking in tongues is the sign that validates the baptism in the promised H.S. in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Ephesus, can the gift of the Spirit be separated exegetically from the sign?' (Ervin, 53)

         Bruner states that the 'classic instances' of the evidenced baptism with the H.S are found in Acts 2,10,19. (Bruner, 78) He sees Pentecost as the first example of this phenomenon. Here is the first baptism of the H.S. in salvation history and tongues was the evidence of this gift. Chapters 10 and 19 show that this pattern is repeated. Therefore  Pentecostals see it as normative for the church today.

         Dunn is not convinced that tongues was the manifestation of the H.S. in the early days of the church. He will go as far as to say that it was a manifestation. He states that there is doubt that the early Believers placed as much emphasis on it then does the modern Pentecostals does.(Dunn, 193) He goes on to say that in times of historic revivals, manifestations of the Spirit were evidenced in the lives of Believers but they were varied and all did not include tongues. (Dunn,192)

5. The relationship between the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Filling of the Holy Spirit

         What is the difference between  being 'filled with the H.S.' and being 'baptized in the H.S.'? Here the Pentecostals would say that there is no difference. (Bruner, 59) You become filled with the H.S. at baptism where you experience the fullness of the Spirit in your life. You receive power for mission and spiritual gifts to equip you for ministry. This filling is not at conversion and is subsequent to you new birth in Christ.

         Most non-Pentecostals see a difference between these two events.  Ladd states that the baptism with the Spirit is not identical with the filling of the Spirit. The former is a once for all event...The filling with the Spirit is primarily an individual experience that can be repeated and has to do with the Christians devotion and ministry.' He continues to say that no where in the NT are Believers commanded to be baptized with the Spirit but we are commanded to be filled with the Spirit. (Ladd, 385)

         The word  'filled'  in Eph. 5:18 is in the present tense and indicates a continual state. It is also an imperative or command. So the idea is that we are to be continually filled with the Spirit. I don't think that the Pentecostal view of the two phrases have the same meaning would fit in this case. Then the Pentecostals would be saying that they must be continually baptized in the Spirit. I don't think that even they would go that far.

        Stephen was filled with the Spirit in Acts 6, Barnabas was filled with the Spirit in Acts 11, Paul was filled with the Spirit in Acts 13 and the Apostles were filled with the Spirit in Acts 2,4.  There were accounts of individuals who were filled with the Spirit after conversion and after what the Pentecostals would consider being baptized by the H.S. This along with the corpus of Scripture  would seem to show that the filling is to be continual and not optional for the life of the believer. It is in this filling that the Believer receives power for mission.

Bruner, Frederick Dale. A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans   Publishing Co., 1970
Dunn, James D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.1970
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1984
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1985
Ervin, Howard M. Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Peabody:    Hendrickson Publishers. 1984
Fee, Gordon D. God's Empowering Presence Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1994
Hawthorne, Martin, Reid. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1993
Ladd, Georde Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdamns       Publishing Co. ,1994
Logos 2.0c:  New Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. 1995
Logos 2.0c: Bible Knowledge Commentary. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. 1995
Logos 2.0c. Harpers Bible Dictionary . Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. 1995
Logos 2.0c: Vines Expository Dict. of Old and New Testament Words. Logos research Systems. 1995
Sellers, C. Norman. Biblical Conclusions Concerning Tongues. C.N. Sellers. 1972
Unger, Merrill F. The Baptism & Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute. 1974