The Baptism and Gifts of the Spirit: An Open But Cautious Position

The Holy Spirit’s role in the life of the believer has been a subject of much controversy particularly since the onset of Pentecostalism in the early 20^th Century.  This movement, spring-boarding from the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, has since spread throughout the entire world, giving birth to the Assemblies of God, the Churches of God, and several nondenominational mega churches, such as Hillsong and Bethel.

Veering from the historic two-state system, Pentecostals advocate a three-state system.  In their system there are unsaved people, saved people, and a new class of people who are saved and subsequently baptized in the Spirit.  Those who are baptized in the Spirit have a special relationship and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit that the other saved people do not have.  They are allegedly more empowered for the mission of Jesus Christ.

Of course, such a conception stirs up controversy in the church.  Some non-Pentecostals charge Pentecostals with elitism and counterfeit spiritual experiences, while some Pentecostals charge non-Pentecostals with dead, carnal religion. The point of this article is to discuss the issues at hand, dig into the Biblical storyline of the Holy Spirit, and arrive at a practical, middle ground view.

My personal story

This debate is near and dear to me, because I grew up with Pentecostal roots.  I grew up under the three-state system, constantly hearing how important it was to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit after salvation.  Tongues and prophecy were a normal part of church life.  Just before my teenage years, my family landed in a nondenominational church that was much more cautious when such gifts were engaged publicly.  However, once I got married, my wife and I left that church and joined a Pentecostal church that was steeped in Word of Faith theology (i.e. name it claim it, prosperity, faith healing, etc).  I ran a discipleship ministry there, and even wrote a book defending Word of Faith theology.  Years later, I left my career and went into full time ministry at a different independent Word of Faith church.  This church was not only Word of Faith, but was also shaped by many aberrant Latter Rain teachings.  I won’t go into details, but after a couple years of being exposed to this extremely charismatic environment, my wife and I were done with it.  We decided that what we were experiencing rarely resembled the genuine supernatural activity narrated in the book of Acts.  To this day, we are members of a non-Pentecostal, evangelical church.

Various Positions

Below I will summarize five predominant positions regarding the baptism and gifts of the Spirit in the approximate order of their emergence:  Historic Protestant, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Third Wave, and Open but Cautious.

I. Historic Protestant Position

• The Baptism in the Spirit in the Book of Acts: The occurrences of the baptism in the Spirit are inaugural.
• The Baptism in the Spirit today: The baptism in the Spirit immerses us into the body of Christ at conversion.
• The Gifts of the Spirit Accompanying the Baptism in the Spirit: The baptism in the Spirit is not necessarily accompanied by any specific miraculous gifts, such as tongues.
• The Gifts of the Spirit Following the Baptism in the Spirit: The miraculous gifts of the Spirit largely ceased after the apostolic era.
• Example Adherents:  John McArthur, R.C. Sproul

II. Pentecostal Position (First Wave)

• The Baptism in the Spirit in the Book of Acts and Today: The occurrences of the baptism in the Spirit are not inaugural, but rather a pattern for the church age.
• The Baptism in the Spirit today: The baptism in the Spirit occurs sometime after new birth.
• The Gifts of the Spirit Accompanying the Baptism in the Spirit: The baptism in the Spirit is evidenced by the immediate exercise of the gift of tongues.
• The Gifts of the Spirit Following the Baptism in the Spirit: The miraculous gifts characterize church life. They come in varying degrees, usually of a lesser pedigree than those demonstrated in Acts.  For example, tongues aren’t usually demonstrated languages, but an unintelligible repetition of syllables.  Prophecies aren’t usually miraculous predictions that come from an audible voice or vision from God, but rather generic encouragements that spontaneously come to mind.
• Example Adherents: Assemblies of God denomination, Church of God denomination

III.  Charismatic Position (Second Wave)

• The Baptism in the Spirit in the Book of Acts and Today:   See PENTECOSTAL
• The Baptism in the Spirit today:  See PENTECOSTAL
• The Gifts of the Spirit Accompanying the Baptism in the Spirit:   See HISTORIC PROTESTANT
• The Gifts of the Spirit Following the Baptism in the Spirit: See PENTECOSTAL
• Example Adherents: Chuck Smith, Calvary Chapel denomination

IV.  Neocharismatic Position (Third Wave)

• The Baptism in the Spirit in the Book of Acts: See HISTORIC PROTESTANT
• The Baptism in the Spirit today: See HISTORIC PROTESTANT
• The Gifts of the Spirit Accompanying the Baptism in the Spirit: See HISTORIC PROTESTANT
• The Gifts of the Spirit Following the Baptism in the Spirit: See PENTECOSTAL
• Example Adherents: Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Sam Storms, C. Peter Wagner, John Wimber, The Vineyard

 V.  Proposed Position: Open But Cautious

• The Baptism in the Spirit in the Book of Acts: See HISTORIC PROTESTANT
• The Baptism in the Spirit today: See HISTORIC PROTESTANT
• The Gifts of the Spirit Accompanying the Baptism in the Spirit: See HISTORIC PROTESTANT
• The Gifts of the Spirit Following the Baptism in the Spirit: The miraculous gifts do continue after the apostolic era, but are only deemed genuine if they occur in a demonstrable miraculous form, such as those narrated in the Book of Acts.  We must be cautious to practice them in such forms, less frequently if necessary, rather than in their often-practiced sensational, naturalistic, counterfeit forms.  An Open but Cautious position would accept tongues that are demonstrated languages, and prophecies that are birthed from actual visions or audible contact with God, and which convey undeniable predictions and authoritative content from God.
• Example Adherents: Robert Saucy, Craig Keener[i], D.A. Carson, Evangelical Free Church

The Pentecostal movement brought an abrupt shift away from the historical theology of the Spirit, but over time its ripples calmed.  Its over-reaction to stoic ecclesiastical worship has largely steered the church towards an evangelicalism that is open to the gifts of the Spirit (in varying degrees), open to hearing God’s voice, open to contemporary songs and expressive worship (e.g. hand raising), yet built upon a historic protestant framework of the baptism in the Spirit.

The Biblical Story-line of the Baptism in the Spirit

Next, let’s take a tour through the New Testament to see exactly what the Baptism of the Spirit was, and why the proposed position makes the most sense. John the Baptist is the first person to mention the baptism in the Spirit.

John’s prediction

Mt 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Notice John contrasts Jesus’ Spirit baptism with his water baptism.  He envisages the forthcoming Spirit baptism as an eschatological event that occurs in parallel with the judgement event (v12). In doing so, he portrays a two-state system consisting of:  Believers baptized in Holy Spirit [wheat] vs Unbelievers burned with unquenchable fire [chaff]. Craig Keener notes, “Because John the Baptist contrasts baptism in the Holy Spirit with hell-fire, he apparently applies it to all true believers.”[ii] This initial observation presents a challenge to the 3-state system proposed by Pentecostals.

Moving on, we see Jesus referring to this same forthcoming Spirit baptism:

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

Notice He ties the Spirit baptism, or the “promise of the Father”, to the “power from on high” which is a prerequisite to successfully preaching the Gospel.  The disciples were not to begin their mission without it (Lk 24:49, Acts 1:8).  At the time Jesus spoke these words, the Spirit had not yet come to the earth in this universally empowering sense.  John explicitly tells us this in John 7, after narrating Jesus’ object lesson about “living water”:

John 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified..

Once again, we see the universal nature of the coming Spirit, Who would be given to “those who believe”, not just a subset of believers.  Once given in this manner, He would no longer dwell “with” a few empowered kings or prophets, but would live “in” all believers (Jn 14:16).  Paul would later confirm that only those outside of Christ would lack such an indwelling of the Spirit (Rom 8:9).  Therefore just as John anticipated, Jesus anticipated a forthcoming two-state system consisting of: Those who don’t receive the Spirit (i.e. unbelievers) vs those who do receive the Spirit (i.e. believers). Assuming Jesus is referring to the same event in John 7:39, John 14:16, and Acts 1:4, He envisages a transitional period where all Old Testament believers would be upgraded to a new kind of “Spirit filled” salvation. The new kind of salvation would be:

• A change in the Spirit’s role (From “had not been given” to given — Jn 7:39, From being”with” to dwelling “in” — Jn 14:16)
• Eschatological (Mt 3:12)
• Intended for all believers (“those who believe” receive Spirit — Jn 7:39, Believers baptized in Holy Spirit [wheat] vs Unbelievers burned with unquenchable fire [chaff] — Mt 3:11-12)

In obedience to Christ, the disciples hung in the “upper room” and waited for this promised empowerment and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  In Acts 2, the fulfillment of the promise begins with a small remnant of believing Jews.

The fulfillment of the promise to the Jews

We see from this account that something spectacular happened, which has never been repeated.  A phenomenon similar to literal fire appeared over the heads of the disciples, and an actual wind blew over the crowd.  Immediately the remnant of disciples began speaking in other tongues, and the crowd understood what they were saying.  The occasion was of extreme supernatural character.  Given this additional information, let us expand our list from above.  The giving of the Spirit was:

• A change in the Spirit’s role
• Eschatological
• Intended for all believers
• Attended by spectacular non-repeated phenomena (e.g. fire-like phenomena, rushing wind)
• Attended by a miraculous endowment of tongues given to a remnant of disciples

The transitional, inaugural nature of Pentecost is evident.  As Robert Saucy notes:

The experiences of the believers at Pentecost (Acts 2) … usually cited as evidence of a two-stage Christian experience, represent the inaugural coming of the Spirit on different groups … during the transition from the old covenant to that of the new age of the Spirit.[iii]

What were the tongues in Acts 2?

I would like to spend a little time addressing the miracle of tongues that occurred on Pentecost. The Greek word glossa, translated as “tongue” in Acts 2, is a metonymy for human dialects throughout the New Testament (Rom 14:11, Php 2:11, and Rev 5:9).  The fact that the phrase, “hear we every man in our own tongue [Gr. Dialektos]” (v8) is reiterated in v11 as the phrase, “we do hear them speak in our tongues [Gr. Glossa]”, proves that the same metonymy is used here in Acts 2. In between these two summary verses we are provided with a list of the languages represented in the crowd (e.g. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc.).  So both dialektos and glossa are intended to mean “human language” in this context.  They were human languages which were suddenly spoken, without compulsion, without training, without suggestion.

Some Pentecostals attempt to downgrade the tongues here to an unintelligible gibberish, perhaps an angelic language, followed by a gift of interpretation granted to the audience.  However, the hearers were still unregenerate Jews who had not yet received the Holy Spirit (See v38), thereby disqualifying them from having such a gift of the Spirit.  No, the crowd’s amazement was that “Galileans” could “speak” in their tongues (v7). Peter’s reference to Joel’s prophecy in v16ff clearly associates the miracle with those who “prophesy”, not with those who miraculously “hear” something. Prophecy is inspired speech that is delivered to its audience in a language they can understand.  No Jew who was familiar with the Old Testament would have equated unintelligible babbling with the “prophesying” predicted by Joel.  Let’s observe Peter’s take on this prophecy, and how it relates to the phenomena at Pentecost.

Even older promises

Acts 2:16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 ​the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ 

Peter knew that this outpouring was not only tied to the promises made by Jesus and John the Baptist, but also to the promise made long ago by the prophet Joel.  Actually, there were several Old Testament prophecies regarding this outpouring of the Spirit onto Israel.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water on the parched ground and cause streams to flow on the dry land. I will pour my Spirit on your offspring and my blessing on your children.

Ezekiel 39:29 And I will not hide my face anymore from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, declares the Lord GOD.”

Note that the initial outpouring of the Spirit was experienced by a remnant of Jews, in direct fulfillment of these prophecies to Israel.  The prophecies for Israel not only promised the coming Spirit, but even more so the coming Kingdom of God.  The Jews were promised to be the kingdom recipients who would welcome “all nations” into the kingdom (Gen 18:18, 22:18, Isa 2:2).  Knowing this, Jesus’ Jewish disciples asked him about the imminence of the coming kingdom.  Check out his answer to them:

Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Jesus’ answer is quite revealing.  The kingdom was not yet arriving in Jerusalem for all nations to flow to, as is pictured in Isaiah 2:2 (At least not yet!).  The kingdom would only be coming in its inaugural form, which is a spiritual form.  The disciples were to start spreading it through the power of the Spirit.  So, instead of the nations flowing to the physical kingdom, the spiritual kingdom was going to the nations!  This expansion would happen in three primary categories:  Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles (i.e. ends of the earth).  As expected, these are the categories of people that receive the Spirit en masse in the book of Acts.

The Acts 2:38 Pattern

The Spirit is first offered to the larger audience of dispersed Israel, contingent upon repentance and water baptism:

Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven … 22 Men of Israel, hear these words: … 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself

Many Jews heeded this command.  Even a small group of John’s Jewish disciples, dispersed as far as Ephesus, were accordingly baptized in the Spirit after meeting the Acts 2:38 conditions.  John the Baptist had instructed them to believe in the forthcoming Messiah, knowing that this Messiah coming “after” him would baptize them in the Spirit (Mt 3:11).  Here is the encounter they had with Paul:

Acts 19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

In Acts 8, we see the second category of people being baptized in the Spirit – the Samaritans.  They were made up of Israelites who were not exiled when the Northern Kingdom was destroyed in 722 BCE— mixed with ethnic groups whom the Assyrians had resettled in the area.  The pure Jews didn’t get along with this alleged hybrid Jewish race, so this event was a monumental sign for the Jews.  Let’s look at it:

Acts 8:12 But when they [the Samaritans] believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. 14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Notice their water baptism made them eligible to receive the Spirit by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, according to the pattern given to the Jews in Acts 2:38.  This pattern was meticulously followed for Jewish groups, hybrid Jewish groups (i.e. Samaritans), and Messianic Jewish groups (i.e. John’s disciples).

Why are these Jewish-related, apostle-initiated baptisms in the Spirit different than the first one?  Why did these ones have water baptism as a prerequisite?  I believe it was to fulfill the below prophecies of Ezekiel and Isaiah, which link water to the forthcoming indwelling and outpouring of the Spirit onto Israel:

Ezek 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Isa 44:3 For I will pour water on the parched ground and cause streams to flow on the dry land. I will pour my Spirit on your offspring and my blessing on your children.

Jesus himself made such an association in John 3:5:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

“When Jesus tells Nicodemus to be born ‘of the water and the Spirit’, he is calling Nicodemus to undergo a ‘spiritual’ proselyte baptism, i.e. a baptism in the Holy Spirit.”[iv] The fact that he scolded Nicodemus, a “teacher of Israel” (v10), for not understanding “these things” strengthens the notion that the Acts 2:38 pattern was plainly prophesied to Israel.

This pattern was the norm for Jewish-related outpourings, only after the initial Pentecost phenomenon, which preceded such meticulous requirements, being the inaugural changeover of the covenants.  The later “Gentile Pentecost” of Acts 10 would also preclude such requirements, as we will see next.

The fulfillment of the promise to the Gentiles

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

So now we have the Gentiles receiving the Spirit in a manner similar to the initial remnant of Jews – Unexpectedly, sovereignly, and accompanied with revelatory sign gifts!  Peter later describes this Gentile phenomenon to Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, directly relating it to John’s promised baptism in the Spirit:

Acts 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Some immediate observations stand out to me in Acts 10-11.  First, Peter associates this event with the Spirit that fell upon the initial remnant of Jews “at the beginning” (11:15), i.e. at Pentecost, not with any other “Spirit giving” events in between, such as the Samaritan event.  This shows that, in the apostles’ minds, there were two main inaugural baptisms in the Spirit – Jewish and Gentile.  These inaugural Spirit baptisms were unexpected, spectacular, and accompanied with miraculous verbal gifts.  They were not apostle-initiated, nor did they require water baptism (like Acts 2:38 seemed to require it for the Jews)[v].  Secondly, the tongues here, and elsewhere in Acts are typically tied to the Jewish onlookers.  Luke notes, “Believers from among the circumcised [Jews] who had come with Peter were amazed” (Acts 10:45).  This shows that the inaugural display of tongues was primarily a sign for Jews, both unbelieving Jews (Acts 2:5, 1 Cor 14:21-22, Mark 16:16), and believing Jews, to confirm that God was opening up “repentance” to all tribes and tongues (Acts 11:18).  Saucy agrees:

Since the occurrence of tongues takes place with the first Spirit-baptism of different groups of people (i.e., Jews, Acts 2; possibly Samaritans, ch. 8; Gentiles, ch. 10; those moving from old to new covenant salvation experience, ch. 19), it is far more convincing to me to see tongues as the physical evidence of the coming of the Spirit marking the inauguration of the new covenant salvation for each of the new groups rather than the Spirit’s empowering as a second work.’[vi]

To summarize the inaugural nature of the giving of the Spirit in Acts, it was:

• A change in the Spirit’s role
• Eschatological
• Intended for all believers
• Attended by spectacular non-repeated phenomena
• Attended by a miraculous endowment of tongues given to a remnant of disciples. The tongues were a sign to confirm to confirm to the Jews that God was opening up “repentance” to all tribes and tongues
• A fulfillment of prophecy to the Jews (e.g. Joel 2:28)

The Baptism in the Spirit today

Though the narrative of Acts suggests that some people received their baptism in the Spirit after they believed, we can’t lose sight of the fact that:  1) The outpouring of the Spirit was always prophesied to coincide with rebirth, 2) Rebirth was a New Covenant concept, 3) Rebirth would be associated with faith in the resurrected Christ, 4) All forms of faith, including Messianic faith, were incomplete prior to the resurrection of Christ.  Let’s start with point #1. Observe a few prophecies about the coming of the Holy Spirit:

Isa 44:3 For I will pour water on the parched ground and cause streams to flow on the dry land. I will pour my Spirit on your offspring and my blessing on your children.

Ezek 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Jer 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts… 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me…”

The Old Testament prophets never suggested separate promises of “outpouring”, “indwelling”, and “new birth”, occurring at different occasions for future believers.  Nor does the Book of Acts suggest such a distinction.  The initial baptisms in the Spirit, with their attendant signs and wonders, fulfilled God’s promise to pour out His Spirit on the true Israel.  The new birth and indwelling Spirit were now to be the norm for all people groups, both Jew and Gentile — for all New Covenant believers.  Consider these New Testament passages that explicitly relate our New Covenant experience of the Spirit to the promises of Jeremiah:

1 Jn 2:27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie…

Jn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Since the New Covenant has come, the Holy Spirit has been given to teach each believer in the same manner predicted by the prophets. John tells us, “You have no need that anyone should teach you”.  This is strikingly similar to what Jeremiah promised — “no longer shall each one teach his neighbor” (Jer 31:34). This teaching ministry of the Spirit is not limited to a subset of believers. It is for all believers in the New Covenant era. For “the world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” (Jn 14:17).  Taking it a step further, if Jesus (and John) suggested that all believers partake of the promises of Jeremiah 31, then we can infer that they partake of all of the prophesied promises of the Spirit — the “outpouring” of Isaiah; the “indwelling” of Ezekiel. For it is evident that Jeremiah’s prophesied “New Covenant”, also called the “everlasting covenant” (Jer 32:40), is identical with Isaiah’s and Ezekiel’s “everlasting covenant” (Isa 42:6, 55:3, Ezek 37:26).  All of these prophets inextricably linked the coming of the covenant with the coming of the Spirit, and all of His ministries. These prophesied ministries of the Spirit are integral to the new covenant experience of rebirth (Jn 3:3-9), an experience which the Old Testament people, whether saint or sinner, had not experienced before the resurrection of Christ (Points #2, #3).  Because of that, many people who were already “saved” in some sense still needed an upgraded salvation (e.g. Acts 19:1f), a New Covenant salvation (Point #4)!  This upgrade came en masse to many groups of people in a short period of time, and it came in a spectacular, inaugural way.  Pentecostals often confuse this initial salvation “upgrade” with a “salvation” => “subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit” pattern today.  Paul would disagree.

1 Cor 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Here Paul is speaking about the same baptism in the Spirit that John the Baptist promised, using the same Greek preposition en.  He says, “For in (Gr. en) one Spirit we were all baptized”, which is parallel with John’s promise “He will baptize you with (Gr. en) the Holy Spirit”.  I call that a match.

So what does Paul teach us here?  First of all, since the context of v7-13 is about the miraculous Spiritual gifts, he is relating the Spirit baptism to miraculous empowerment, just as Jesus did, and just as the apostles experienced in Acts (contrary to some folks who believe Paul’s focus is sanctification while Luke’s focus in Acts is power).  Secondly, he is teaching that the baptism in the Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ.  It makes us Christians!  This refutes the Pentecostal and charismatic notion that the baptism in the Spirit is subsequent to conversion.

To summarize, Acts documents a massive transition from Old Testament “salvation”, which did not encompass New Birth and Spirit Indwelling, to New Covenant “salvation”, which did!  All of the people who received the baptism in the Spirit in Acts were being incorporated en masse into the newly formed body of Christ.  Today, all New Covenant believers start off with this New Covenant salvation, not an Old Testament salvation that needs upgraded.  They are immediately filled with, regenerated by, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit individually!  So the apparent “second” experience some people had in Acts was really a “first” experience of what we all experience today as believers.

A Matter of Semantics

Of course, there are many evangelicals who claim that this description of the baptism in the Spirit doesn’t mesh with some post-salvation experience they had.  But what if they are simply using wrong semantics?  Let’s look at some language Paul uses for post-salvation experiences with the Spirit:

Eph 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The “filling” of the Spirit can be a gradual thing, or one or more distinct experiences following conversion.  In the book of Acts, we see instances where people who were already baptized in the Spirit were later filled with the Spirit and further empowered for bold witness:

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders…

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Keener notes:

Acts indicates that believers may receive empowerments subsequent to their “second experience” (4:8, 31; 13:9). Paul likewise speaks of living a Spirit-filled life (Eph. 5:18), walking by the same Spirit one has already received (Gal. 5:16–23) … These passages suggest that the whole sphere of the Spirit’s work becomes available at conversion, but believers may experience some aspects of the Spirit’s work only subsequent to conversion.[vii]

So much divisiveness could be avoided if Pentecostals employed this “filling” language with regard to post-salvation experiences, rather than impose a two stage model of Christianity (Christians vs. Spirit-baptized Christians).  Surely they believe in a powerful work of the Spirit during conversion, as evangelicals do.  Why not call that the “baptism in the Spirit”, as Paul does?  On the other hand, non-Pentecostal evangelicals believe in powerful experiences of the Spirit subsequent to conversion.  Why not call those occasions the “filling of the Spirit”, as Luke does?  I like to think of it this way:  The baptism in the Spirit was our initial “filling” by the Spirit (Acts 2:4), but not every “filling” of the Spirit is the baptism in the Spirit!

Gifts Accompanying the Baptism in the Spirit today

We have already established that the initial Jewish (Acts 2) and Gentile (Acts 10) outpourings, both of which included the gift of tongues, were highly inaugural.  Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled first for the Jews, and secondarily for the Gentiles.  We shouldn’t expect tongues to accompany the baptism in the Spirit today any more than we would expect literal tongues of fire and rushing winds, or any more than we would require water baptism and apostolic laying on of hands to precede it (Acts 2:38, 8:12-17, 19:1-10).  In fact, most Pentecostals and charismatics believe that the office of “apostle” has ceased, which would make the latter impossible!

In addition, Paul rhetorically asks, “do all speak in tongues?” (1 Cor 12:30), expecting an obvious answer of “no”.  He also confirms that ongoing tongues are not purposeful “in the church” but are signs for unbelieving cultures outside of the church, similar to their inaugural purpose for Jews – see 1 Cor 14:18-22.

Although the purpose of the baptism in the Spirit is spiritual empowerment, it is not restricted to any specific gift.

Gifts Following the Baptism in the Spirit today

Though many aspects of the book of Acts were foundational, such as the unique ministry of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), and the spectacular signs and wonders they demonstrated (Heb 2:4), there are many reasons why we should not limit all miraculous gifts to the first century:

• The “last days”, in which all “all flesh”, all “sons and daughters”, “maidservants”, “young men”, and “old men” would prophesy, extends through the entire church age. Though the initial fulfillment of this prophecy was inaugural, and some of the things mentioned are consummate (e.g. “sun shall be turned to darkness”), the already-not yet principle demands some level of continuance between the already and not yet.

• 1 Corinthians 13 explicitly states that the revelatory gifts won’t cease until the “perfect” age comes; the age in which we shall know even as we are known (13:12):

The statements in the context about seeing “face to face,” suggesting a complete direct knowledge as opposed to the indirect vision of a mirror, and of coming to “know fully, even as I am fully known” (v.12), clearly speak of the state of glorification (v.13). These statements refer to the coming of Christ, when perfection arrives.” This text, therefore, does not indicate that certain gifts will cease before that state comes.[viii]

• Paul gives instruction regarding the revelatory gifts in several epistles (Rom 12, 1 Cor 11-14, 1 Thess 5, 1 Tim 4)

• Jesus’s promises of miraculous activity didn’t seem to be limited to the apostles (Jn 14:12, Mk 16:17)

• In Acts, miracles were not limited to the apostles or those directly empowered by the apostles (e.g. Ananias in Acts 9:10)

• In the Gospels, miracles were not limited to Christ’s immediate disciples (e.g. those casting out demons in Luke 9:49-50)

• “Genuine manifestations of prophecy are predicted for the future (e.g. Rev. 11:3, 10)”[ix]. According to the major interpretations of Revelation, the two witnesses prophesy either during the entire church age, or in a tribulation at the end of the church age.

Given such a list of evidences, “It is, therefore, impossible to say, on the basis of biblical teaching, that certain gifts cannot occur at any given time according to God’s sovereign purpose.”[x]

Not so great a divide:

Evangelicals are closer to Pentecostals than they think

I often hear evangelical pastors use phrases like:

• “I felt like God was telling me to call Frank and pray for him”
• “God gave the leadership team a peace about this land purchase”
• “We sensed that God was leading us in that direction”
• “I planned to preach on love today, but God placed another topic on my heart last night”

Aren’t these all examples of extra-Biblical revelation?  Of course they are!  Most evangelicals don’t call these “prophecies” or “words of wisdom” (as Pentecostals do), but they acknowledge a powerful working of the Spirit nonetheless.  Keener argues,

Some noncharismatics have reproved charismatics for using terms such as revelation and inspiration for something other than Scripture, yet they agree that God’s Spirit can lead our daily lives, which is what most charismatics mean by the terms.[xi]

On the other hand, Pentecostals and charismatics are very loose with their use of the phrase “prophecy”.  A true prophecy is an infallible authoritative word from God revealed via His audible voice, a vision, a vision-like dream, or some other undeniable direct communication from God; not a nudge or random thought (See Num 12:6-8).  If it is predictive, it is razor sharp in accuracy (Deut 13:1-5, 18:21-22).  Real prophecy in the New Testament is just like prophecy in the Old Testament, as the word “prophecy” did not change meanings between the time Joel 2:28 was written and the time of its fulfillment in Acts 2:17.  It still means the same thing, and it is still characterized by infallibility, authority, and accuracy!

In prophecy, one was inspired to speak directly as God’s agent, essentially declaring, “Thus says the Spirit” (Acts 21:11; Rev. 2:1; 3:1).[xii]

If prophecy is truly an inspired revelation from God, it is authoritative no matter who is the vehicle through whom it is received. The biblical question that is still pertinent today is not that of levels of authority, but rather whether it is genuine prophecy.[xiii]

My above remarks do not preclude the possibility of prophecy today.  We should still pray for the real gift as Paul commands us to (1 Cor 14:1).  Nor is the possibility of real prophecy in competition with the canon of scripture.  Such a notion is unscriptural (ironically). “That prophecies do not automatically constitute Scripture is clear from Scripture—most prophecies in biblical times were not recorded in Scripture; see, for example, 1 Kings 18:13.”[xiv]  Even during Biblical times (both OT and NT) there were prophets who prophesied authoritative words from God at a personal, local, non-canonical level, whose words never made it into scripture, nor did their words contradict scripture.  Certainly God wouldn’t contradict His universal canonical commands with localized personal ones.  He’s not a liar!  The truth is, there are more prophecies than there are scriptures (i.e. not all prophecies are universally binding canon), and there are more scriptures than there are prophecies (i.e. not all scriptures are “prophecies” – many are divinely inspired narratives, letters to churches, wisdom, psalms, etc).  Canon and prophecy are different things. The first is a collection of diverse writings which God providentially compiled, preserved, and had his people discover and promote as universally applicable to all people of all ages. The latter is direct divine communication, which is of a miraculous nature, and which may or may not be included in the former. It is infallible, authoritative, and accurate though not universally applicable to all people of all ages. It could be a specific directive for a person, a group, or a local church. The canon can include narratives of lies (Gen 3:4, Josh 2:4), dialog of foolish unwise friends (Job 4-37), and suggestions that are not direct commands of the Lord (1 Cor 7:25). Prophecy cannot. Canon includes accounts of what various personalities said (including God). Prophecy is only what God said. It’s not from the will of man but rather directly from God (2 Pet 1:20-21). Saucy offers his agreement on this matter:

Many prophecies in both Old and New Testament times were never inscripturated to become part of the canon: for example, specific directions such as the church at Antioch received regarding Paul and Barnabas; the prediction of a famine, as with Agabus; an appropriate application of canonical truth, like some of the prophetic preaching of the Old Testament prophets. In any case I cannot see how all prophetic utterances somehow relativize the canon or add to the canon.[xv]

However, if we are going to allow this gift to manifest, we need to judge the prophecies as Paul commanded (1 Cor 14:29).  Too many charismatics are giving prophecies that either aren’t in line with scripture or prove to be false predictions.  This is the natural fruit that results from the view that prophecy can be a fallible report of revelation, and that God is okay with varying levels of authority and accuracy in prophecy.

In sum, I do not find any support in Scripture either for the definition of prophecy as the [fallible] report of revelation or for prophecy with error. This does not necessarily preclude the manifestation of prophecy in the church today, but it does raise questions concerning much of what is purported to be prophecy by the continuationist today.[xvi]

I believe that if Pentecostals and charismatics change their terminology a little, they can be in the middle ground with most other evangelicals.  They should simply stop calling spontaneous nudges “prophecies”, and stop adding the verbiage “thus says the Lord” unless they are absolutely sure the Lord has infallibly spoken.  Lesser forms of “revelation” should be referred to by phrases which other evangelicals use (“I sense …”, “God placed something on my heart”, “I feel led to …”, “God gave me a peace about…”), rather than “prophecy”.  Saucy discusses this semantical tension:

God does guide or reveal his mind to us today in matters that transcend the explicit teaching of Scripture-for example, in specific directions in personal or even church decisions. Strong divergence, however, remains over the nature and place of contemporary “prophecy” in this guidance. While I remain personally convinced that all biblical prophecy is inspired infallible utterance, I am not at all sure what difference there is between some “fallible prophecy” accepted by many continuationists and the “guidance” or “leading” of God that the church has always taught, except that “prophecy” may appear to be more miraculous. In this area, I believe that care should be taken that our disagreements are really substantive and not merely semantic.[xvii]

Pentecostals are closer to other evangelicals than they think

On the other hand, Pentecostals and charismatics aren’t as far from other evangelicals as they think.  Most would agree that there is a difference between today and the initial covenant transition in Acts.

• Most would agree there were more spectacular miracles then. “The apostles in their miracle-working were different from others in the church both in the New Testament and subsequently”[xviii] (e.g. limbs growing out, dead people rising, etc.)

• Most would agree there were non-repeatable signs (e.g. flames over heads at Pentecost, thousands of people hearing tongues in their languages, etc).

• Most would agree that the canon of scripture closed and God stopped giving new universal revelation

• Most would agree there is no office of Apostle (capital A) today. “Even those who hold a present church ministry as successors of the apostles agree that the original biblical apostles were in some sense unique.”[xix]

If they agree with these differences between today and Acts, then they should have no problem accepting the inaugural nature of the gift of tongues in the book of Acts, and the proposal to remove tongues as a necessary component of the baptism in the Spirit today.

I’ll go one more step and ask Pentecostals to consider rethinking what tongues are altogether.

Reassessing the Nature of Tongues Today

As I pointed out earlier, it is evident that in Acts 2 the tongues spoken were real languages.  They weren’t unintelligible ecstatic speech, such as the repetition of the same syllable over and over again. They could be readily understood by someone who either already knew that language or was miraculously endowed with such an understanding.

Keener boldly confesses, “In contrast to some Pentecostals, I believe that “tongues” in both Acts and 1 Corinthians refers to genuine languages, albeit languages unknown to the speaker.”[xx]  Saucy concurs:

The important point is that they were all language, i.e., they conveyed conceptual thought. The gift of tongues could be interpreted with understanding …  some studies have shown that many expressions of contemporary tongues have no linguistic characteristics.[xxi]

Since Acts 2 is the first real narrative of tongues in practice, we should be very wary of claiming that the definition changed between Acts 2 (real languages) and 1 Corinthians 12-14 (supposed unintelligible ecstatic speech), as many Pentecostals do.  Right in the middle of Paul’s discourse on the gifts, 1 Corinthians 13:1 explicitly states that the Pauline tongues are “tongues of men”:

1Co 13:1  Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Here Paul explains that even if we employ our spiritual gifts to a hyperbolic (perhaps unattainable) degree, they are useless without love.  For example, in verse 2, Paul states, “Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge … and have not charity, I am nothing.”  We know from the same chapter that prophecy and knowledge are only endowed “in part” during the church age (v9).  Therefore Paul is using hyperbole when he refers to understanding “all mysteries” and “all knowledge”.  He is making the point that even if such a degree of prophesying were possible, without love, it is useless.  With that pattern, we should understand 13:1 as defining tongues as the “tongues of men”.  Paul only mentions “tongues of angels” to make the point with hyperbole that, even if we could speak the languages of divine beings (which by the way would also be real languages as opposed to gibberish), without love it would be useless.  This corroborates with what we discovered in Acts 2.  “Tongues” are “tongues of men”, not unintelligible ecstatic utterances.

Many Pentecostals have asserted that there is a self-edifying personal prayer language, which is distinct from the public kind of tongues that occurred on Pentecost.  This category can allegedly include unintelligible ecstatic utterances, or even real languages, which occur in private and don’t require interpretation.  Such a notion is based on 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

The key here is to read the whole chapter in context, and really get Paul’s point.  First, we are told in verse 22 that the gift of tongues is not designed for believers, but is rather a sign for unbelievers (cf Mk 16:17).  It has the most value, not “in the church”, but outside the church (v29); not in our prayer closets at home, but out on the mission field.  I have heard of occasions where this gift has manifested in the presence of foreign unbelievers, and they heard and understood, and were converted. That’s the real deal!  Secondly, Paul’s context from chapters 12-14 is one of body life and edification.  Therefore Paul is addressing the negative, self-serving nature of uninterpreted tongues, in contrast with the positive body-serving effect of prophesying in verses 3-4.  The former is cast in a negative light, while the latter is encouraged.  When someone speaks in a miraculously endowed language that most (or all) of the congregation doesn’t know, he is wasting the congregation’s time.  He is not speaking to men, but only to God (v2).  Why?  Because no one understands a word he is saying.  “With his spirit”, or his innermost being, he is speaking but it’s not “fruitful” to those around him (v14).  It’s only edifying to himself.  This is not the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (12:7).

Even if one argues for self-edification based on verse 4, if edifying the church means “giving the church intelligible information they can understand”, then self-edification should have a similar requirement.  Therefore, the edification he is receiving must be very minimal at best, as he doesn’t understand a word he himself is saying. He is speaking “mysteries” that neither he nor the church understands.  He is only edified to the degree that he is actively praying and knowing that God is hearing him and answering the prayer.  However, the edification would be much greater if he prayed, not just with his spirit, but also with his mind, which is precisely Paul’s solution, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also” (v15).  Even Mary, prior to ever receiving the gift of tongues prayed with her spirit:  “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Lk 1:46-47). Therefore, praying “with the spirit” is not limited to speaking in a tongue, any more than serving “with the Spirit” (Rom 1:9) is serving in tongues, or loving in the spirit (Col 1:8) is loving in “tongues”.  The New Covenant is a spiritual covenant.  In contrast to the Old Testament economy, which was filled with physical types and shadows, New Testament worshippers now worship “in Spirit” (Gr. en pneumati) and “in truth” (John 4:23).  Surely an English speaking Christian who sincerely prays in English is not merely praying with her brain to the exclusion of her spirit.  That would mean that all of her English prayer is fleshly and carnal.  The truth is, whether a person prays in a different tongue or in her native language, she is praying with her spirit.  The difference is in the understanding, or lack thereof, in those who hear her.  If no translator is present and I don’t have the gift of translating my miraculously endowed language, then I should simply pray in the common language which is both “with my spirit” and “with my understanding”, simultaneously! This provides maximal edification and fruit for both me and those around me.  Isn’t this exactly the teaching of Jesus – “The good ground is he that hears the word, and understands it; which also bears fruit” (Mt 13:23).

The human language interpretation is the only interpretation that makes sense given Paul’s emphasis on interpretation.  The word “interpret” (Gr. diermeneuo) commonly means “to translate” (e.g. Acts 9:36). So Paul’s context of interpretation means that human languages, not gibberish, are involved.  If tongues consisted of gibberish, there is no way of knowing if someone is present who can or will interpret it.  Therefore, Pentecostals often speak out in shear faith that someone, normally the pastor, will step up and attempt an “interpretation” of the ecstatic speech – an approach which has been demonstrated to yield multiple conflicting interpretations.  If tongues consist of human languages, on the other hand, the presence of an interpreter of that language (whether by recent miraculous gifting or natural knowledge) would be readily known beforehand.

The fact that Paul quotes Isa 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21 is yet another proof that Paul is speaking of human languages.  He writes,

1 Cor 14:21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.

In Isaiah 28, God is telling Israel that when they hear the language (“tongue”) of another people group, namely the Babylonians, it will be a sign that God’s judgment is upon them.  In the same way, the plethora of tongues spoken by the first century Christians was a sign, especially to the Jews, that God had now opened up the covenant to all people groups.  Both Acts 2 and Acts 10 corroborate this fact about tongues.  In both cases we see explicit references to Jews being confounded when they hear tongues spoken (2:6, 10:45).

What about Romans 8:26? Doesn’t it advocate unintelligible groaning?

Doesn’t Romans 8:26 teach that all believers should intercede in tongues when they don’t know how to pray?  No.  The word “tongues” is not mentioned at all in this verse, nor do any historical commentaries ever suggest that tongues is in scope.  Let’s look at the passage in context:

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

Notice when we read the context, Romans 8:26 has nothing to do with intercessory tongues.  The “groaning” is not tongues, or else creation is also speaking in tongues (v22).  No, the groaning is figurative language emphasizing the pain and agony that the curse has brought upon creation only to be alleviated by the future redemption of the body. Until then, we may not even know what to pray for in the midst of our anguish, but the Holy Spirit is silently interceding for us with groanings that are too deep for words (Gr. Alaletos – unutterable, not verbalized, in any language or tongue)!  To claim that this verse is speaking of any spoken language, whether ecstatic or intelligible, is to miss Paul’s entire point.  Paul is emphasizing the Spirit’s silent sympathy for our weaknesses, as He asks the Father, in our stead, for those things that are His ultimate will.  We don’t know those things, but He does – “And he who searches the hearts [the Father] knows what is the mind of the Spirit [the Holy Spirit], because the Spirit [the Holy Spirit] intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” (v27).  This is why all things ultimately work out for our good, even when we don’t know how (vv28-30).

An Open but Cautious Position

 To summarize, the ministry of the Spirit – New Birth, Indwelling, and Baptism – is granted to us when we are converted.  It is a powerful experience wherein we are given a new nature and equipped to be witnesses for Christ.  It may or may not be accompanied with a miraculous verbal gift of the Spirit.  After conversion, however, believers can and should be filled with the Spirit consistently through singing, studying the Word of God, giving thanks in all things, and submitting to one another (Eph 5:18ff, Col 3:16ff).  We should be open to (and desirous of) all types of Spiritual gifts, including the controversial miraculous ones listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. But we should ask God for their genuine, undeniable emergence.  Anything less should be classified either as a different gift, or as a counterfeit altogether.

With regard to tongues, we shouldn’t be teaching people to speak a bunch of unintelligible syllables repetitively “by faith”.  That’s not what happened in Acts 2.  No, we should be seeking to validate each tongue as a real human language, or as some kind of language for which multiple, independent spiritually endowed interpreters can give the same interpretation.

With regard to prophecy, we shouldn’t give every spontaneous thought the label of “prophecy”.  We should seek prophecy that is genuine, miraculous, and infallibly received from God through supernatural means.  Even then, it should be done in an orderly, and discerning fashion.  Saucy cautions us:

Any purported expression of this gift [of prophecy], however, must meet the biblical pattern: (a) It must be totally harmonious with canonical revelation. (b) It must be judged carefully by the community (1 Cor. 14:29) …  (c) The content of the prophecy should be edifying to the community (1 Cor. 14:3-4) … (d) Prophecy must also be done in an orderly manner in accord with the apostle’s instructions to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14:19-33)[xxii]

Most importantly, Scripture must take precedence over all revelatory gifts.

That is why Scripture is the “canon,” the “measuring stick,” hence, the final arbiter of revelation. To fail to evaluate our claims to hear the Lord is arrogance and invites the discipline of the Lord. Can we possibly think that any one of us hears God accurately if we contradict the apostles and prophets God inspired through the centuries[xxiii]

End Notes:

[i] Some might classify Keener in the third wave category, but I placed him in the open but cautious category because of his insistence on tongues being intelligible language, prophecy being infallible, and all revelatory gifts being scrutinized meticulously

[ii] Keener, Craig.  Gift and Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today [E-book]. Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker’s Academic, 2001.  “The Spirit and Salvation”

[iii] Saucy, Robert (Article).  Grudem, Wayne (General Editor).  Gundry, Stanley (Series Editor).  “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views”. Zondervan Academic (October 11, 2011).  Pg 98.

[iv] Keener. “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”

[v] Those who are dogmatic about the necessity of water baptism for new birth should consider this, especially since we are in the times of the Gentiles (Lk 21:24).  A strict adherence to the Acts 2:38 pattern seems misplaced in the church age. Some may argue that Acts 2:39 places the repent–be baptized–receive the Spirit “promise” on all future people that the Lord will call, including Gentiles. However, the “Promise” does not include the conditions. The “Promise” is the “Spirit” Himself (Acts 1:4, 2:33), and God sovereignly decides how and when to grant the Spirit (John 3:8). In the case of the first Jews, He desired a more stringent Acts 2:38 sequence. However, in the case of the Gentiles, such a sequence was not as important. Nevertheless, water baptism still served an important role for Gentiles, as Peter immediately wanted to baptize Cornelius’ household after they believed (Acts 10:47). So even though the water baptism/Spirit baptism sequence wasn’t as rigid, the two events should still be proximate to each other.

[vi] Saucy.  Pg 303.

[vii] Keener.  “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”

[viii] Saucy. Pg 123.

[ix] Saucy. Pg 128.

[x] Saucy.  Pg 100.

[xi] Keener.  “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”

[xii] Keener. “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”

[xiii] Saucy.  Pg 148.

[xiv] Keener.  “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”

[xv] Saucy.  Pg 161.

[xvi] Saucy.  Pg 232.

[xvii] Saucy. Pg 331.

[xviii] Saucy. Pg 329.

[xix] Saucy.  Pg 101.

[xx] Keener.  “Tongues and the Spirit”

[xxi] Saucy. Pg 131.

[xxii] Saucy.  Pg 128.

[xxiii] Keener.  “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”