BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - PART II

By Sam Storms



In this study we are looking primarily at the arguments used by classical Pentecostals and some
Charismatics to defend Spirit-baptism as an experience that is both separate from and subsequent to
conversion.


The Analogy based on the experience of J esus

This argument is as follows. Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. This is
said to correspond with our regeneration or new birth by the Holy Spirit. Years later (@ 30), Jesus is
anointed with the power of the HS for public ministry (Acts 10:38). This event is interpreted as his
baptism in the Holy Spirit. If the Son of God needed this extra enduement of power, how much more
do we, his disciples.

Whereas I certainly believe that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism in the river
Jordan, all for the purpose of empowering him for ministry (Acts 10:38), I do not believe this
experience is a valid parallel or pattern for us when it comes to our baptism in the Spirit. Here is why.

1. The text does not say Jesus was baptized in the HS. It says he was anointed (Acts
10:38; Luke 4:18). Indeed, far from being baptized in the HS Jesus is himself the one who
does the baptizing! John the Baptist clearly asserts of Jesus: "He Himself will baptize you in
the Holy Spirit and fire" (Mt. 3:11b; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33).

2. The analogy breaks down when we observe that Jesus didnt need to get saved. Unlike all
of us, Jesus was not unregenerate. There was no time at which he was an unbeliever.
There was no time at which he experienced conversion. Therefore it makes no sense to
speak of any particular incident in his life as being separate from and subsequent to
conversion.

3. The fact that the HS anointed Jesus with power at the age of thirty was simply because that
was the point at which he began his public ministry as Gods messiah. There is no biblical
evidence to suggest that it reflects a normative, God-ordained will for subsequence in
either his life or the lives of his followers.

4. There certainly is an analogy between the experience of Jesus and the experience of the
Christian: we do need the power of the HS to do the works of Jesus. But there is no biblical
justification for identifying this with Spirit-baptism. In Acts, it is more appropriately called the
filling of the Spirit.

The Analogy based on the experience of the first disciples

This argument is as follows. The first disciples underwent a two-stage experience: they were
regenerated and converted in John 20:22, at which time they received the HS. But they did not
experience Spirit-baptism until the day of Pentecost. Their baptism in the Spirit, therefore, was
obviously separate from and subsequent to their conversion (this would be the case even if we dont
regard John 20:22 as their conversion experience).

Before I respond to this argument, it would be helpful if I said something about John 20:22 and what I
believe Jesus did on that first Easter Sunday. We are told that Jesus said: "Peace be with you; as the
Father has sent Me, I also send you" (v. 21). Then we read: "And when He had said this, He breathed
on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" (v. 22).

Gerald Hawthorne, in his excellent book, The Presence and the Power (a study of the relationship
between Jesus and the Spirit), reminds us of this important fact.

The very first thing Jesus did immediately after he was resurrected from among the dead and
reunited with his followers was to pass on to them, as a gift from his Father (cf. Acts 2:23), that
same power by which he lived, triumphed, and broke the bands of his own human limitations.
On the very day of his resurrection, he came to them locked in by their fears, breathed on
them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) (235).

Point: the mission of Jesus is not over. It merely passes into a new phase. Jesus continues the
mission given him by his Father by sending forth his disciples in the same power with/by
which the Father sent him forth, i.e., the power of the Holy Spirit.

Here is the problem posed by John 20:22 - In Acts the Holy Spirit comes on the day of Pentecost, 50
days after the resurrection, whereas here in John 20 the Holy Spirit appears to come on the day of the
resurrection. Are John and Luke in conflict? Several observations will help resolve this problem:

* These are not contradictory accounts of the same event: in John we have a secret,
restricted gathering, at evening, of the disciples only, and Jesus is personally present; but
in Acts we have a public gathering, in the middle of the morning, with the entire Jerusalem
congregation present, but Jesus is absent.

* John 20:22 does not describe their regeneration or new birth: (a) they were already
clean (John 13:10); their names were already written down in heaven (Luke 10:20);
Peter had openly testified that Jesus was the Christ (Mt. 16:16-17; cf. John 16:30); see
also John 17:8-19 where Jesus refers to them as already belonging to the Father; (b) this
impartation of the Spirit is not related to their conversion but to their commission (I also
send you, v. 21).

* The coming of the Spirit is directly dependent on the going of the Son. See John 7:37-
39and 16:7. The sending of the HS is contingent on the ascension of the Son. Jesus is
portrayed here as not yet having ascended (John 20:17). Therefore, this is not a
Johannine Pentecost.

* Breathing is obviously symbolic. Pneuma may be translated wind, breath, air, and
spirit. Cf. Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:2-4,9. This latter text suggests that just as a lump of clay
fashioned from the earth or a pile of bones bleaching in a valley were caused to spring to
life by the breath of God then, so now the followers of Jesus are being given the
opportunity to spring to life with a new spiritual vitality by that same breath of God
(Hawthorne, p. 236).

* The Greek text has been interpreted differently. D. A. Carson, for example, argues that it
does not say he breathed on them, but merely that he breathed, or he exhaled. He
points out that this is the only place this verb appears in the NT, but in all of its
occurrences in the LXX there is an accompanying preposition (such as "into" or "in" or
"upon") or some such auxiliary phrase. Thus Carson concludes that "the
verb emphysaoitself, when not encumbered by some auxiliary expression specifying the
person or thing on whom or into whom the breath is breathed, simply means 'to breathe'"
(652). It must be noted that Carsons view is a minority one and has been challenged on
several counts.

There are three possible interpretations of what Jesus did:

1) Some (including Gary Burge; see his commentary on John in the NIV Application series
[Zondervan]) contend that this was a genuine and full anointing of the Spirit and must not be
played off against the events of Acts 2.

2) Others argue that this constituted a preliminary imparting of the Spirit, in anticipation of the
complete gift that would come at Pentecost. Calvin referred to John 20:22 as a sprinkling of the
HS and Acts 2 as a saturation! Key: Luke 24:49 clearly teaches that at Pentecost the followers of
Jesus would receive the fullness of divine power = the Holy Spirit. Therefore, whatever occurred
in John 20:22, it was at most a taste of Pentecost, not the full meal; it was at most atransitional
empowering of the disciples to get them from Easter to Pentecost.

Some have argued that this was not the full impartation of the Spirit by pointing to the fact that the
lives of the disciples changed little as a result of it. They still lived in fear (20:26), reverted to their
former employment (21:1-3), and insisted on comparing service/loyalty records in a virtual game of
spiritual one-up-manship (21:20-22).

3) Others insist that there was no actual impartation of the Holy Spirit. Rather, John 20:22 is anacted
parable, i.e., a symbolic promise of the coming power of the HS that is not fulfilled until the day of
Pentecost.

In sum: it matters little if this was a partial enduement of power in anticipation of Pentecost or simply a
symbolic act or prophetic parable pointing forward to Pentecost. The fact remains thatthe principal
concern of the Son after his resurrection is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church for the
perpetuation of the divine mission he initiated.

Now let me return to our main concern. Does the experience of the disciples provide a pattern for us
regarding Spirit-baptism? I don't think so.

1. It is unwise to argue that their experience is a pattern for ours when we realize that their
experience could not have been otherwise than it was. In other words, it wasimpossible for
them to be baptized in the Spirit when they believed, simply because they believed long
before Spirit-baptism was even possible. Lederle put it this way:

This conclusion is . . . underscored by the fact that the apostles began believing in
Jesus (in some or other form at least) before the Spirit was poured out on the church
on the day of Pentecost. This places them in a situation different to every Christian
living after Pentecost. It was thus necessary that the apostles experience the new
freedom and life in the Spirit which came with Pentecost in a unique way because they
could not experience it before it had come (prior to Acts 2) (60).

2. Whereas the results of Pentecost (the presence and power of the HS) extend to the
church as a whole, that day was in a very real sense unique and unrepeatable. The Spirit
came on that day in a way that could occur but once. The Spirit, therefore, is now here
in a way that prior to Pentecost he was not. Pentecost was the inauguration of a new
phase or age in the redemptive plan of God. Thus, it is unwise to assume that the
sequence in the experience of those who were alive and believing when it occurred is
normative for the experience of those who were not. Wayne Grudem explains it this way:

"They [the first disciples] received this remarkable new empowering from the Holy
Spirit because they were living at the time of the transition between the old covenant
work of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant work of the Holy Spirit. Though it was a
'second experience' of the Holy Spirit, coming as it did long after their conversion, it is
not to be taken as a pattern for us, for we are not living at a time of transition in the
work of the Holy Spirit. In their case, believers with an old covenant empowering from
the Holy Spirit became believers with a new covenant empowering from the Holy
Spirit. But we today do not first become believers with a weaker, old covenant work of
the Holy Spirit in our hearts and wait until some later time to receive a new covenant
work of the Holy Spirit. Rather, we are in the same position as those who became
Christians in the church at Corinth: when we become Christians we are all 'baptized in
one Spirit into one body' (1 Cor. 12:13) -- just as the Corinthians were, and just as
were the new believers in many churches who were converted when Paul traveled on
his missionary journeys" (Systematic Theology, 772-73).


The argument based on the experience of individuals in Acts

Three groups of people are singled out.

1. 1. The Samaritans(Acts 8:4-24) - Most are familiar with the story of how Philip the evangelist
traveled to Samaria and preached the gospel with amazing results. Signs and wonders were
performed and many "believed" in Jesus. When Peter and John heard this, they too came to Samaria
and prayed for these people "that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon
any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vv. 15-16).

2. Acts 8:16 is one of the most extraordinary statements in the entire book. Why? Because it is the only
record in the entire NT of people believing in Jesus Christ, being baptized in water, and notreceiving
the Holy Spirit. Is the experience of the Samaritans normative for all other Christians in every other
age? Five interpretations are worthy of consideration.

1. The classical Pentecostal view is that the Samaritans experience a second reception
of the HS, a work of grace that is obviously separate from and subsequent to the initial work
by which they became believers in Jesus. They identify this second experience as thebaptism
in the Holy Spirit.

But note that Luke says explicitly that the HS had not fallen on them at all (see v. 16). He
appears to say that what occurs in vv. 16ff. is the first reception of the HS, not the second.
In other words, for the Samaritans there had been no earlier or first coming of the Spirit to
make this a subsequent or second coming.

2. According to one popular view, the Samaritans had already received the HS, but they
had not experienced his charismatic manifestations. In other words, it isnt the HS himselfthey
lacked; only his supernatural gifts. Gordon Fee argues for this view, insisting that the
phenomenological expressions of the Spirits presence are what he [Luke] describes as the
coming of or filling with the Spirit (Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 90-91). Advocates of this view
point out that the words Holy Spirit in this narrative lack the definite article, thus pointing not
to the person of the Spirit per se, but to the power or operations of the Spirit, i.e., his gifts.

However, it has been shown that no significant theological conclusions can be drawn from the
presence or absence of the definite article (see pp. 68-70 of James Dunn's, Baptism in the
Holy Spirit). Also, according to vv. 15-19, it is the HS, not his gifts, who comes when the
apostles lay on hands. Whereas the HS is certainly distinct from the gifts he imparts, when he
comes it is always with his gifts.

3. Others suggest that this is an example of the principle that the HS only comes through
the laying on of hands. But if this were the case, how does one explain Acts 2:38where no
mention is made of "hands"? (2) Also, if it were only a matter of laying on of hands, why
didnt Philip simply do it? The apostle Paul received the HS without the laying on of hands
when he was converted (Acts 9). And when Philip led the Ethiopian eunuch to the Lord he
didnt lay hands on him (Acts 8:26-40). Finally, apart from Acts 19, nowhere else in Acts is the
HS connected to the laying on of hands.

Not wanting to yield that easily, some say apostolic hands were the key. But there is no
record of the apostles scurrying up and down the eastern end of the Mediterranean trying to
keep up with the rapidly spreading gospel as new-born Christians eagerly waited on the touch
of their hands for the reception of the Spirit!

4. Another view, advocated primarily by James Dunn (63-68), is that the Samaritans had
not yet received the HS because they were not yet saved. The arguments in defense of this
view are as follows.

(a) The Samaritan response to Philip is described by a term used to describe their
response to Simon (cf. vv. 6,10). This suggests that their reaction to Philip may have
been for much the same reason and of the same quality as their reaction to Simon. In
other words, this was the response, not of saving faith, but of mass emotion and mob
hysteria.

(b) Their belief was at best intellectual assent, not heart-felt commitment to Christ.
This is suggested by Lukes use of the verb to believe with a dative object, rather
than the standard to believe in/upon the name of Jesus. Says Dunn: This use
ofpisteuein [to believe], unique in Acts, can surely be no accident on Lukes part. He
indicates thereby that the Samaritans response was simply an assent of the mind to
the acceptability of what Philip was saying and an acquiescence to the course of
action he advocated, rather than that commitment distinctively described elsewhere
which alone deserves the name Christian (65).

(c) Finally, Luke says that even Simon believed (v. 13), and then proceeds to reveal
that his faith was spurious (v. 21). Thus, in spite of his "response" to Philip, Simon had
neither "part" nor "portion" in the matter of salvation (v. 21). That is to say, he never
had truly become a member of the people of God in the first place. And "Luke makes it
clear (vv. 12f.) that Simons faith and baptism were precisely like those of the other
Samaritans, as if to say, Note carefully what I say, and do not miss the point: they all
went through the form but did not experience the reality (Dunn, 66).

Against this view are the following points.

(a) According to v. 14, they had received the Word of God, identical terminology to
2:41 and 11:1, where genuine conversion is in view.

(b) Perhaps Luke specifically reveals the spurious character of Simons faith so as
todistinguish it from the saving faith of the Samaritans.

(c) According to v. 12, their belief in Philips message was belief in Christ!

(d) When Peter and John arrived they didnt preach the gospel. They simply prayed for
them to receive the HS. This is strange indeed if the Samaritans weren't saved in the
first place.

(e) If the Samaritans had in fact misunderstood Philip, I would expect the apostles to
correct the problem through additional teaching (as Priscilla and Aquila did with
Apollos in Acts 18:26). But there is no reference to any activity of this sort.

(f) The same terminology Luke uses in Acts 8 is used in Acts 16:34 and 18:8 to
describe genuine faith in God.

(g) Finally, they were baptized into the name of Jesus (v. 16). Into the name was a
phrase common in commercial transactions when a property was transferred or paid
into the name of someone else. Thus a person baptized into the name of Jesus is
saying: I have passed into his ownership; Jesus owns me lock, stock, and barrel; He
is my Lord.

5. The most likely answer as to why God withheld the Holy Spirit from these and these
only is found in the unique relationship between the Jews and Samaritans. An important fact to
remember is that this was the first occasion on which the gospel had been proclaimed not only
outside Jerusalem but inside Samaria. This is significant for several important reasons.

It may be difficult for us today to grasp the depth of hatred that existed between Jews and
Samaritans. The Jews blamed the Samaritans for having destroyed the unity of Gods people
and the monarchy following the death of Solomon in 922. They were also regarded as half-
breeds because they had intermarried with Gentiles. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem
after the exile, the Samaritans hindered their efforts to rebuild the temple and constructed their
own on Mt. Gerizim. In 6 a.d., during the Passover, some Samaritans scattered the bones of a
dead man in the court of the temple in Jerusalem, an act of defilement that enraged the Jews
and only intensified their animosity. Indeed, the Jews publicly cursed Samaritans and prayed
fervently that God would never save any of them.

These are some of the reasons why the Parable of the Good Samaritan was so shocking to
Jewish ears. As far as the latter were concerned, the phrase Good Samaritan was a
contradiction in terms! It also explains why everyone was so surprised when Jesus dared
engage a Samaritan woman in conversation at Jacob's well (John 4). The woman herself put it
well when she said, "'How is it that you, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a
Samaritan woman?' For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9). In John 8:48the
Jewish leaders addressed Jesus, saying, "Do we not say rightly that you are a Samaritan and
have a demon?" I suspect that if the Jews themselves had a choice between the two, they
might prefer to be a demon rather than a Samaritan!

One final observation will help. Geographically speaking, Samaria was located between
Galilee to the north and Judea to the south. The Jewish disgust for Samaria was so intense
that when they had to travel from Galilee to Judea, or vice versa, they would first travel due
east and then south (or north, as the case may be), in order to avoid even having to set their
feet on Samaritan soil!

My question is this: What might have happened had the Samaritans received the gospel
independently of the church in Jerusalem? Something needed to be done to insure unity, lest
schism or division emerge. Frederick Bruner explains:

The Samaritans were not left to become an isolated sect with no bonds of union with
the apostolic church in Jerusalem. If a Samaritan church and a Jewish church had
arisen independently, side by side, without the dramatic removal of the ancient and
bitter barriers of prejudice between the two, particularly at the level of ultimate
authority, the young church of God would have been in schism from the inception of its
mission. The drama of the Samaritan affair in Acts 8 included among its purposes the
vivid and visual dismantling of the wall of enmity between Jew and Samaritan and the
preservation of the precious unity of the church of God (A Theology of the Holy Spirit,
176).

Therefore, the unprecedented delay of the HS was in order that the leaders of the
church in Jerusalem, Peter and John, might vividly and personally place their
imprimatur or stamp of approval on the movement of the gospel into Samaria (cf. Acts
1:8). In view of this historical background of racial and religious animosity, it was deemed
prudent by God to take steps to prevent a disastrous split in the early church: hence the
temporary and altogether unusual delay of the coming of the Spirit. An unprecedented
situation demanded quite exceptional methods.

[Having said all this, I have to be honest in admitting that this incident poses questions about
the reception and experience of the Holy Spirit that may have to remain unanswered. For even
the explanation that I have given as to why God suspended the gift of the Spirit in the case of
the Samaritans does not explain theologically how they could have been regenerated,
converted, and believing Christians, members of the body of Christ, without yet having
received the Holy Spirit.]

2. Cornelius and the Gentiles( Acts 10:1-48; 11:12-18) - Here is the second monumental
extension of the gospel beyond the boundaries of Jewish exclusivism. The problem arises when it is
argued that Cornelius was already saved when Peter arrived (vv. 2,35). If he were, then his reception
of the Holy Spirit in vv. 44-48 would constitute a second blessing, or a post-conversion baptism in
the Holy Spirit. But there are several reasons why we cannot regard Cornelius as having been
saved prior to Peters arrival.

1. Acts 11:14 says that the message Peter proclaimed was the way Cornelius was saved.
The message or gospel is essential. The gospel and the gospel alone is the power of God
unto Cornelius salvation (Rom. 1:16-17). Also, note that the tense of the verb is future (will be
saved, 11:14). If he believes Peters gospel message he will be saved (indicating that he isnot
yet saved). If he rejects the message, he wont.

2. Acts 10:43 says that the essence of salvation is the forgiveness of sins, a blessing that
comes only through believing in the name of Christ. One cannot be saved until and unless
he/she believes in the name of Christ.

3. Elsewhere in Acts, even the most God-fearing and moral people (i.e., the Jews) are
told they must repent and believe the gospel to be saved (cf. 2:5; 3:19).

4. Acts 11:18 indicates that Cornelius and the Gentiles received from God repentance
unto life only when Peter preached the gospel and they turned to faith in Christ.

But if Cornelius was not truly converted until Peter preached the gospel to him, what does it mean to
say that Cornelius was welcome or acceptable to God (Acts 10:35) prior to his hearing and
responding to the gospel? John Piper's explanation is the best:

My suggestion is that Cornelius represents a kind of unsaved person among an unreached
people group who is seeking God in an extraordinary way. And Peter is saying that
Godaccepts this search as genuine (hence acceptable in verse 35) and works wonders to
bring that person the gospel of Jesus Christ the way he did through the visions of both Peter
on the housetop and Cornelius in the hour of prayer . . . .

So the fear of God that is acceptable to God in verse 35 is a true sense that there is a holy
God, that we have to meet him some day as desperate sinners, that we cannot save ourselves
and need to know Gods way of salvation, and that we pray for it day and night and seek to act
on the light we have. This is what Cornelius was doing. And God accepted his prayer and his
groping for truth in his life (Acts 17:27), and worked wonders to bring the saving message of
the Gospel to him. Cornelius would not have been saved if no one had taken him the gospel
(Let the Nations be Glad, 146, 148).

In conclusion, then, Cornelius and the other Gentiles received the Holy Spirit when they were saved,
and not at a time subsequent to their initial faith in Christ. Cornelius and the Gentiles were baptized in
the Spirit at the moment of their conversion.

3. The Ephesian Disciples (Acts 19:1-10) - The argument from this passage is that these are
Christian men who had not yet received the Holy Spirit. It is only after Paul prays for them (i.e.,
subsequent to their faith) that they are baptized in the Spirit. I believe this interpretation is largely
fueled by the erroneous translation of v. 2 in the KJV: have ye received the Holy Ghostsince ye
believed? The correct translation is found in both the NIV and NASB: did you receive the Holy
Spirit when you believed?"

Pauls question in v. 2 is designed to uncover what kind of belief or faith they had experienced. If
their belief was saving, Christian belief, then they would have received the Holy Spirit (Rom.
8:9!). The fact that they had not received the HS proved to Paul that their belief was not Christian
belief. Says Dunn:

It was inconceivable to him [Paul] that a Christian, one who had committed himself to Jesus
as Lord in baptism in his name, could be yet without the Spirit. This is why the twelve had to
go through the full initiation procedure. It was not that Paul accepted them as Christians with
an incomplete experience; it is rather that they were not Christians at all. The absence of the
Spirit indicated that they had not even begun the Christian life (86).

Their response: we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit, does not mean they had
never before so much as heard of the Spirits existence. The HS is frequently mentioned in the OT,
and John the Baptists own words to his followers (among whom these people included themselves)
were that the Messiah would baptize in Spirit and fire. The point is that although they had heard
Johns prophecy of Messianic Spirit-baptism, they were not aware of its fulfillment. In other
words, they were ignorant of Pentecost.

But if these people were not Christian disciples, what kind of disciples were they? Beasley-Murray
offers this explanation:

There is . . . nothing improbable in the existence of groups of people baptized by followers of
John the Baptist and standing at varying degrees of distance from (or nearness to) the
Christian Church. There must have been many baptized by John himself who had listened to
the preaching of Jesus and his disciples, who had received the gospel with more or less
intensity of conviction and faith and regarded themselves as His followers, yet who had no part
in Pentecost or its developments . . . In Pauls eyes these men were not Christians --- no man
who was without the Spirit of Jesus had any part in the Christ (Rom. 8:9). Probably Luke
himself did not view them as Christians; his employment of the term . . . disciples, is a gesture
in recognition that they were neither on a level with unbelieving Jews, nor classed with
pagans. They were men who had paused on the way without completing the journey, half-
Christians, occupying a zone of territory that could exist only at that period of history when the
effects of Johns labors overlapped with those of Jesus (Baptism in the New Testament, 109-
11).

Thus, when Paul discovers they had not received the Holy Spirit he knows immediately they are not
Christians. Upon realizing that they were but disciples of John, Paul proclaimed Jesus, in whom they
believe, at which point they receive the HS.


There are several other texts that speak of post-conversion encounters or experiences with the Holy
Spirit that are related to but not identical with infilling.

1. There is the impartation of revelatory insight and illumination into the blessings of
salvation (Eph. 1:15-23; cf. Isa. 11:2). Here Paul prays that God will impart to them the Spirit yet again,
so that he might supply the wisdom to understand what he also reveals to them about God and his
ways. This is something for which we must pray (both for ourselves and for others). There are
dimensions of the Spirit's ministry in our lives that are suspended, so to speak, on our asking.

It strikes some as odd that Paul would pray for the Spirit to be given to those who already have Him.
But this hardly differs from Paul's prayer in Eph. 3:17 that Christ might "dwell" in the hearts of people in
whom Christ already dwells! Paul is referring to an experiential enlargement of what is theologically
true. He prays that, through the Spirit, Jesus might exert a progressively greater and more intense
personal influence in our souls. Thus, in both texts Paul is praying for an expanded and increased
work of God in the believer's life.

2. There is also the anointing of power for the performance of miracles as seen in Gal.
3:1-5 (esp. v. 5). Paul clearly refers both to their initial reception of the Spirit (v. 2) and to their present
experience of the Spirit (v. 5). The unmistakable evidence that they had entered into new life was their
reception of the Spirit (v. 2). Fee explains:

"The entire argument runs aground if this appeal is not also to a reception of the Spirit that
was dynamically experienced. Even though Paul seldom mentions any of the visible evidences
of the Spirit in such contexts as these, here is the demonstration that the experience of the
Spirit in the Pauline churches was very much as that described and understood by Luke -- as
visibly and experientially accompanied by phenomena that gave certain evidence of the
presence of the Spirit of God" (God's Empowering Presence, 384).

Paul speaks of God as the one who continually and liberally supplies the Spirit to men and women
who in another sense have already received him. This is especially evident when one takes note of
Paul's use of the present tense (i.e., "He who is supplying you with the Spirit"). Evidently there is a
close, even causal, relationship between the supply of the Spirit and the resultant working of miracles.
That is to say, "God is present among them by his Spirit, and the fresh supply of the Spirit finds
expression in miraculous deeds of various kinds. Thus Paul is appealing once more to the visible and
experiential nature of the Spirit in their midst as the ongoing evidence that life in the Spirit, predicated
on faith in Christ Jesus, has no place at all for 'works of law'" (Ibid., 388-9).

3. Paul also speaks about the provision of the Spirit to face hardship with hope (Phil.
1:19). I don't believe he is thinking so much of the "help" the Spirit gives, but of the gift of the Spirit
himself, whom God continually supplies to him (and to us!). In other words, the phrase "the
supply/provision of the Spirit" (an objective genitive, for those of you know a little Greek) points to the
Spirit as the one who is himself being given or supplied anew to Paul by God to assist him during the
course of his imprisonment.

4. In 1 Thess. 4:8 the apostle speaks of the continuous exertion of strength from the Holy
Spirit necessary for purity. He specifically says the HS is given "into" (eis) you, not simply "to" you. The
point is that God puts His Spirit inside us (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19). The use of the Greek present tense
emphasizes the ongoing and continuous work of the Spirit in their lives. If Paul had in mind their
conversion and thus their initial, past reception of the Spirit, he would probably have used that tense of
the verb (aorist; cf. 1:5-6) more appropriate to that sort of emphasis. In context, Paul's point is that the
call to sexual purity and holiness comes with the continuous provision of the Spirit to enable
obedience. Thus the Spirit is portrayed as the ongoing divine companion, by whose power the believer
lives in purity and holiness.

5. The Spirit is also responsible for our deepened awareness of adoption as sons and
increased confidence and assurance of salvation. It is the work of the Spirit to intensify our sense of
the abiding and loving presence of the Father and Son (see Rom. 5:5; 8:15-17; John 14:15-23). There
are times in the Christian life when the believer finds himself more than ordinarily conscious of Gods
love, his presence, and power (see Eph. 3:16-19; 1 Pt. 1:8). In other words, there is a heightened,
increased, or accelerated experience of the Spirit's otherwise ordinary and routine operations. Why
would God do this, you ask? I like J. I. Packer's answer:

Why should there be this intensifying -- which, so far from being a once-for-all thing, a
second [and last!] blessing, does (thank God!) recur from time to time? We cannot always
give reasons for Gods choice of times and seasons for drawing near to his children and
bringing home to them in this vivid and transporting way, as he does, the reality of his love.
After it has happened, we may sometimes be able to see that it was preparation for pain,
perplexity, loss, or for some specially demanding or discouraging piece of ministry, but in other
cases we may only ever be able to say: God chose to show his child his love simply because
he loves his child. But there are also times when it seems clear that God draws near to men
because they draw near to him (see James 4:8; Jeremiah 29:13,14; Luke 11:9-13, where give
the Holy Spirit means give experience of the ministry, influence, and blessings of the Holy
Spirit); and that is the situation with which we are dealing here" (Keep in Step, 227).

Consider the experience of that great American evangelist, D. L. Moody (1837-99):

"One day, in the city of New York -- oh, what a day! -- I cannot describe it, I seldom refer to it;
it is almost too sacred an experience to name. . . . I can only say that God revealed himself to
me, and I had such an experience of his love that I had to ask him to stay his hand. I went to
preaching again. The sermons were not different; I did not present any new truths, and yet
hundreds were converted. I would not now be placed back where I was before that blessed
experience if you should give me all the world -- it would be small dust in the balance."

Howell Harris (1714-73) describes his experience this way:

"June 18, 1735, being in secret prayer, I felt suddenly my heart melting within me like wax
before the fire with love to God my Saviour; and also felt not only love, peace, etc. but longing
to be dissolved, and to be with Christ; then was a cry in my inmost soul, which I was totally
unacquainted with before, Abba Father! Abba Father! I could not help calling God my Father; I
knew that I was his child, and that he loved me, and heard me. My soul being filled and
satiated, crying, 'Tis enough, I am satisfied. Give me strength, and I will follow thee through
fire and water.' I could say I was happy indeed! There was in me a well of water, springing up
to everlasting life, Jn. 4:14. The love of God was shed abroad in my heart by the Holy
Ghost, Rom. 5:5."

6. Some, such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, have found in Eph. 1:13 and the "sealing" of the
HS another instance of an experience of the Spirit that is separate from and subsequent to conversion.
Let's look closely at this text.

The literal use of the term "seal" (cf. 2 Cor. 1:21-22) was of a stamped impression in wax pointing to
ownership and protection. "As Eph. 1:13 and 4:30 make certain, the 'seal' is the Spirit, by whom God
has marked believers and claimed them for his own" (Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 807).

The dispute is over how we are to understand the relationship between "believing" and "sealing".
Should we translate it, "after believing, you were sealed," in which case sealing is indeed separate
from and subsequent to saving faith (conversion)? Or should we translate it, "when you believed, you
were sealed," in which case sealing and believing are simultaneous? Grammatically speaking, one can
find evidence for both usages in the NT (although "when you believed" is more probable). Fee is
inclined to think that believing is indeed antecedent to sealing, but, he says, "the two verbs have
nothing to do with separate and distinct experiences of faith. Rather, the one ('having believed [in
Christ]' logically precedes the other ('you were sealed'); but from Paul's perspective these are two
sides of the same coin" (670).

So, is there any basis for equating the "sealing" of the Spirit with the "baptism" in the Spirit as Lloyd-
Jones does? Personally, I think not.

In view of these many passages, it comes as no surprise that Jesus should encourage us to ask the
Father for more of the Spirit's ministry in our lives, as he does in Luke 11:13. Could it be that this
exhortation to pray for the Holy Spirit flows from Jesus' own experience of the Spirit? Could it be that
he himself prayed for continued, repeated anointings, infillings or fresh waves of the Spirit's presence
and power to sustain him for ministry, and here encourages his followers to do the same?

Where Luke (11:13) says the Father will give the "Holy Spirit" to us Matthew (7:11) says he will give
"good things". Why the difference? John Nolland suggests that "it will be best to see that, since from a
post-Pentecost early church perspective, the greatest gift that God can bestow is the Spirit, Luke
wants it to be seen that God's parental bounty applies not just to everyday needs (already well
represented in the text in [the] Lord's Prayer) but even reaches so far as to this his greatest possible
gift" (Word Biblical Commentary on Luke 9:21-18:34, 632).

Since this exhortation is addressed to believers, the "children" of the "Father", the giving of the Spirit in
response to prayer cannot refer to one's initial experience of salvation. The prayer is not by a lost
person needing a first-time indwelling of the Spirit but by people who already have the Spirit but stand
in need of a greater fullness, a more powerful anointing to equip and empower them for ministry. In
fact, the petition of v. 13 is part of the instruction on persistence and perseverance in prayer that
began in Luke 11:1. Thus we are repeatedly and persistently and on every needful occasion to keep
on asking, seeking and knocking for fresh impartations of the Spirit's power.

These texts would appear to dispel the concept of a singular, once-for-all deposit of the Spirit
that would supposedly render superfluous the need for subsequent, post-conversion
anointings. The Spirit who was once given and now indwells each believer is continually given
to enhance and intensify our relationship with Christ and to empower our efforts in ministry.
But we need not label any one such experience as Spirit-baptism.

Perhaps an illustration will help in bringing this to a conclusion. Let us suppose that you reach into the
cabinet for medication to relieve a persistent headache and take hold of what you believe is aspirin.
Unfortunately, the label on the bottle has long since worn off. Nevertheless, the medicine works.
Fifteen minutes after swallowing two tablets, your headache is completely gone. Your spouse then
informs you that the medicine you took was, in fact, Tylenol. Does this news cause your headache to
return? It shouldn't. The medicinal value of the Tylenol is not diminished simply because you
mislabeled it. Calling it aspirin in no way altered the physical properties of what was, in fact, Tylenol.

My point is that the reality of "extra-conversion" experiences of the Holy Spirit is not undermined
should it be discovered that we have "mislabeled" the event. The spiritual "medicine", so to speak, still
works. Whereas I prefer to reserve the terminology of Spirit-baptism for what all experience at
conversion, the fact that the Pentecostal applies it to a subsequent, and more restricted, empowering
does not in and of itself invalidate the latter phenomenon. The important issue is whether or not the NT
endorses both the initial saving work of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ on the
one hand, and the theologically distinct (though not always subsequent) work of anointing for witness,
service, and charismatic gifting on the other. I believe that it does.

So what happened to Paula? In my opinion, Paula was converted to saving faith in Christ at the age of
eleven while at church camp. At that moment she was baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also
came to permanently indwell her. On that night nine years later Paula was filled with the Holy Spirit as
she cried out to the Lord to renew her commitment and empower her for a live of service to His glory.