On the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

By Craig Simonian
Since the establishment of modern Pentecostalism in 1901, Pentecostal and traditional evangelical theologians 1[1]
have been at odds over the meaning of the baptism in the Spirit. 2[2] Although each position offers a viable interpretation, it
will be proven that neither has been entirely true to scripture. The conclusions offered in this paper reflect, to a great
degree, the positions maintained by those who stand in the gap between the Pentecostals and Traditional Evangelicals...
men such as C. Peter Wagner, Wayne Grudem, Jack Deere and John Wimber, whose Vineyard Christian Fellowship grew
from a few churches just a few decades ago, to nearly eight hundred today. This paper attempts identify the reasons why
the Vineyard may have adopted the theological position it has with regard to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is not
mean to reflect official Vineyard thinking as no Vineyard sources were consulted other than their own doctrinal
statement.

Luke: Historian and Theologian

Given that the foundations of Pentecostal theology rest in the Gospel of Luke and in the Book of Acts, it is necessary that
the issue of interpretation be addressed. As a principle of interpretation, many traditional theologians have strongly
asserted that doctrine must be based primarily on didactic passages rather than descriptive or narrative passages. Since
Luke-Acts reflect the narrative style, and because Paul's letters are generally didactic, it follows that doctrine should be
based on Paul, not Luke. Therefore, we should interpret Luke in light of Paul. Such scholars as Dunn, Green, Erickson,
and Stott have adopted this methodology. Erickson, for example, states that with respect to doctrines, those theologians
who emphasize the supreme authority of the Bible must place major emphasis upon the didactic material. 3[3] Similarly,
John Stott writes,
This revelation of the purpose of God in Scripture should be sought in its didactic, rather than its
historical parts. More precisely, we should look for it in the teachings of Jesus, and in the sermons and
writings of the apostles, and not in the purely narrative portions of Acts. 4[4]
1[1]. I will use the designation, Traditional Evangelical Theologian or Traditional Theologian
simply to distinguish them from Pentecostal Theologians. Both would be considered Evangelical
by todays definition.
2[2]. The modern Pentecostal movement is a later development of John Wesley's teachings on
entire sanctification as a "second work of grace". However, as the nineteenth century appeared,
the emphasis of this 'second work', or baptism with the Spirit, took on additional meaning. Men
such as R.A. Torrey and Andrew Murray taught that the baptism in the Spirit, distinct from
regeneration, equips the Christian for service. A.B. Simpson spoke of the baptism in broader
terms including purifying, refining, quickening, and energizing. The baptism of the Holy Spirit,
according to Petecostals today, is the full reception of the Spirit subsequent to regeneration,
which empowers the believer for witness and the exercise of spiritual gifts.

3[3]. Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd ed., 1998.)
p.208.
4[4]. John R.W. Stott. Baptism and Fullness. (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP, 1971), p.8.

This notion, which considers Luke to be only a historian rather than both historian and theologian, is utterly without
merit, as we will see.
First, this distinction between didactic and descriptive narratives fails to recognize the diversity of literary forms biblical
writers have been inspired to use. Also, God often reveals His character and purpose through His actions-- such as the
way in which He deals with man. A great amount of biblical revelation has come through descriptive narratives. 5[5]
Websters defines didactic as that which is "used for instruction, intended for teaching". Many if not all of the descriptive
passages in scripture have the same purpose.6[6] Paul himself states that "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." 7[7] He says also in Romans 15:4, "for whatever was
written in earlier times was written for our instruction." He was, of course, referring to the Old Testament which is
mostly narrative. Paul would not have made a distinction between 'didactic' Leviticus and 'descriptive' Exodus. James
Barr, classifies this distinction as a, "illegitimate identity transfer". 8[8]
Surely Luke did not set out to compose a mere academic recording of events but he carefully chose from a vast supply of
pericopes in order to fulfill his theological intent. Charles Hummel states that "Luke, like other historians, has his own
perspective on events and a particular purpose in reporting them which guides his selection of facts, the way he relates to
them, and the meaning they communicate... The narratives in Acts are no more 'purely descriptive' than are the
testimonies of Paul. Both are designed to teach."9[9] No longer, should we interpret Luke's theology of the Baptism of the
Holy Spirit in light of Paul. With respect to Luke's independence as a theologian, Marshall writes "Luke was entitled to
his own views, and the fact that they differ in some respects from those of Paul should not be held against him at this
point. On the contrary, he is a theologian in his own right and must be treated as such." 10[10]
Now that Luke has been restored to his proper place as a theologian, the question now is not whether or not his
descriptive passages have doctrinal value but how to interpret what is being taught. As a theologian independent of Paul
we must realize that Luke's meaning of baptism in the Spirit may differ from Paul. What is Luke's doctrine of the
Baptism of the Holy Spirit? First we must understand Luke's theological intent with respect to the Holy Spirit. While
Luke agrees that the gift of the Holy Spirit is essential in conversion, he does not attempt to describe the inner spiritual
development of the disciples.11[11] The many examples of believers in the Book of Acts cause us to "search for a
5[5]. Charles E. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace: Charismatic Renewal n the Nineties (Downers
Grove, Ill: IVP, 1993), p.107.
6[6]. Ibid., p.107.
7[7]. II Timothy 3:16
8[8]. Roger Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. (Peabody, Mass: Henrickson
Publishers, 1984.) p.9. See Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language.
9[9]. Hummel, p.107. For additional support, see I.H. Marshall Luke: Historian and Theologian.
(Grand Rapids:MI, Zondervan, 1970).
10[10]. Stronstad, p.11.
11[11]. Hummel, p.108.

normative model, a standard pattern of spiritual growth. But it is fruitless because Luke does not intend to provide
one."12[12] Luke's intent is not to describe the inner life of Christians, but the expansion of the church as it fulfills its
mission. We would have to go to the teachings of Paul to investigate the Spirit's work in the inner life of an individual
Christian.
The phrase, Baptize in the Holy Spirit, is mentioned seven times in the New Testament-- four times by John the Baptist
in each of the four gospels referring to the experience of the disciples on Pentecost; two times as quotations in Acts; and
once by Paul to describe initiation into the body of Christ. 13[13] In lieu of the narrow contexts here, we must consider
whether the phrase has more than one meaning. Both Luke and Paul speak of the baptism within the context of their
purpose. Luke's perspective is the "unfolding of redemptive history and the mission of the church" whereas Paul's is the
"experience of individual believers when they become members of the church". 14[14] Yet in spite of their different
purposes, men such as Stott and Dunn continue to interpret the many passages in Acts relevant to Pentecostal theology
against the backdrop of Paul's purpose, not Luke's. Stott makes no effort to see Luke as having a distinctive purpose. In
Baptism and Fullness, he basically starts with Paul's notion that the baptism refers to incorporation into the body of Christ
(I Corinthians 12:13) and attempts to fit all of Luke's narrative into this mold.
Luke's understanding of the baptism refers primarily to an empowerment for prophetic witness. He neither refers to a first
or second stage of salvation in the life of an individual. Hummel makes this clear saying that the baptism of the Spirit
should not be understood as a milestone in the disciples' individual spiritual pilgrimage. This is neither the intent nor the
context of Luke's teaching. From Luke's theological perspective it is a sign, not if the disciple's inner experience, but of
the coming of the New Age in God's plan of redemptive history.15[15] Only against this backdrop can Luke-Acts be
correctly interpreted and Pentecostal theology evaluated.

Understanding Water Baptism and

Pentecost
Pentecostals build their theology of Spirit Baptism from their understanding of water baptism, Pentecost and related
passages, and five instances in Acts where it would appear that believers were baptized with the Spirit subsequent to
regeneration. Each of these will be studied in light of both Paul and Luke's purpose. Because water baptism was
considered in Judaism and by the early church fathers to be a rite of initiation into the people of God, the initial
occurrence of the Spirit's indwelling and empowering was associated with baptism in the Holy Spirit. 16[16] The fact that
12[12]. Ibid., p.109.
13[13]. Since this phrase is used three times by Luke and only once by Paul it is even more absurd
to interpret Luke in light of Paul with regard to the Spirit baptism.
14[14]. Hummel, p.182.
15[15]. Ibid., p.183.
16[16]. E.W. Lyon. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. by Walter A. Elwell. (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1984.) p.121. Note: men such as Irenaeus (ca. AD 130-202), Tertullian
(AD 150), Didymus of Alexandria (AD 309), and Basil (AD 330) all associated water baptism with

the Spirit descended upon Jesus moments after His baptism in the Jordan River by John strengthens the association
between water and Spirit baptism. The "indwelling and endowment with the Holy Spirit, being available through Christ
to all who believe, inevitably was linked with and described in terms of that crucial public step by which individuals
first... were accepted as members of the Spirit-filled... Church of Christ." 17[17] Traditional evangelical theologians also
associate water baptism with Spirit baptism in so far as it demonstrates that Spirit baptism, like water baptism is an
initiatory rite-- not something that would come subsequent to conversion. 18[18] Many Pentecostals do not accept the
association between water and Spirit baptism. They view the one as being entirely independent of the other. 19[19]
Therefore, the notion of Spirit baptism as a requisite to initiation or incorporation into the body does not exist. However,
as will be proven later, Paul clearly states that believers are baptized into the body of Christ-- hence, you can not be a
Christian unless you are baptized into the body of Christ. 20[20]
Pentecostals have been at odds with traditional theologians over the nature of Pentecost. In anticipation of this event,
John the Baptist spoke to the multitudes in Luke 3:16 saying, as for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming
who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thongs of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and
fire. Whereas John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus would baptize in the Holy
Spirit. Yet, this Man of the Spirit would become the Giver of the Spirit only after He died, rose, and ascended (John 16:7).
Each of the four gospels anticipated the occasion where Jesus will pour out His Spirit on all who believe. This awaited
day was Pentecost. In summarizing the significance of Pentecost, Hummel writes, For Jesus this day has a twofold
significance. He had been anointed and filled with the Spirit for His own public ministry. Now, exalted at the right hand
of God, He pours out the Holy Spirit on His disciples to empower their mission. On Pentecost Jesus baptizes them with
the Spirit as John the Baptist foretold. The Bearer of the Spirit becomes the Giver of the Spirit. 21[21]
In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is depicted as the unique Bearer of the Spirit. Luke makes it a point to end his gospel with
the ascension of Jesus-- this marks the end of Jesus' earthly ministry. In the Book of Acts, on the other hand, Luke begins
with the ascension. This time, however, the ascension is not viewed as the culmination of Jesus' ministry on earth but the
beginning of the Spirit age (Acts 2:33). Here, the ascension is the introduction to Pentecost which ushers in the New
Age.22[22] Whereas in the Old Covenant the Spirit was given to a select few, the New Covenant will extend a universal
endowment (Acts 2:39).
Spirit baptism. [see Stanely M Burgess. The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity. (Peabody, Mass:
Henrickson Publishers, 1984.) pp. 64, 110, 115, 141.]
17[17]. Ibid., p.121.
18[18]. Acts 2:38-39 supports this notion: "Repent, and be baptized (water)... and you shall
receive the gift of the Spirit."
19[19]. Lyons. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p.121.
20[20]. This is clearly Paul's perspective. Luke, as we will see, takes on a different meaning-- not
contradictory but complementary.
21[21]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.92.
22[22]. James D.G. Dunn. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Philadelphia, Pa: Westminster Press, 1970.)
p.44.

The gift of the Spirit given to the disciples on Pentecost, by Jesus, parallels the transfer of the Spirit from Moses to the
seventy elders.23[23] This parallel is important for it demonstrates the background from which Luke writes. Luke was very
much influenced by the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament with respect to the transfer motif, just mentioned,
and the vocational motif.24[24] The Spirit often dealt with certain men in order to enable them to perform some special
service.25[25] For example, He enabled some for governing nations (Nu. 27:15-23), for military leadership (Judges 3:10;
6:34-6), for artistic workmanship (Ex. 31:4- 5), and for prophetic ministry and writing of scripture (Ezekiel 11:5). 26[26]
When speaking of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, Luke is speaking in similar terms-- power to serve. There is much
debate concerning Pentecost that demand attention here. Pentecostals rightly see the disciples as regenerate men. In
Luke 10:20, Jesus exhorts His disciples not to rejoice in the authority He has given them over Satan, but to rejoice that
their names "are recorded in heaven".27[27] Therefore, the experience of Pentecost can be considered a 'second experience'.
They also see the church as already existing before Pentecost. To support this they quote Matthew 18 which deals with
'church' discipline.28[28] In order to address this issue it is necessary to turn to John 20:21-22. Here in John 20, after the
resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples who were in fear behind locked doors because of the Jews:
Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, 'Peace be with you'...And again Jesus said, 'Peace
be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.' And with that He breathed on them and said,
'Receive the Holy Spirit'.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones considers this a certain proof that indeed, "the church was constituted as a body and as an organism
there and then. Our blessed Lord, having finished His work and having presented Himself and His blood in heaven, is
now the head of the church... He breathes this Spirit of life into the body..." 29[29] In interpreting this verse, it is important to
consider John's purpose here-- for our interpretation must never lie away from the framework within which the author
works. It is important to note that John is not trying to neatly dovetail his narrative here with Luke as though they were
moving in an identical direction. Hummel completes this thought saying,
This account in chapter 20 should not be viewed as filling a gap in Luke's sequence and interpreted
within his framework. In his Gospel, John teaches the unity of the final decisive events in Jesus'

23[23]. Numbers 11:10-30. See Stronstad. Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.59.
24[24]. Ibid., p.13.
25[25]. Taken from an outline of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit prepared by Grace Theological
Seminary, p.78.
26[26]. This is by no means exhaustive.
27[27]. See also John 13:10; 17:6.
28[28]. The use of this passage to support this position is without merit. Clearly those listening to
Jesus were not equating 'ekklesia' with 'church' as we know it. Also Matthew is using a prePentecost pericope in the context of a post-Pentecost church. Note also: The church is seen to
have began either at the calling of the twelve, at Peters confession, or the Lord's Supper.(Martin,
New Testament Foundations, p.71)
29[29]. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Joy Unspeakable: Power and Renewal in the Holy Spirit. (Wheaton,
ILL: Harold Shaw, 1984.) p.254.

ministry: death, resurrection, ascension and gift of the Spirit. He records this fourth event of the cluster
in the context of the commission given to the disciples. 30[30]
John 20 is usually interpreted in one of two ways although both fail to understand the passage in light of John's purpose.
Some believe that the impartation of the Spirit in verse 22 began the New Age of the Spirit-- where the disciples were
regenerated and the church was rooted. Howard Ervin supports this notion stating, "from the Paschal insufflation of the
Spirit, the apostolic community was the church, in the full sense of the word, before the Holy Spirit came upon them
conferring power to witness (Pentecost)."31[31] Like Luke, John's purpose is not the inner life of the disciples.
Others view Jesus' action as a promise of a future event. J.I. Packer holds to this position citing the fact that Jesus was not
yet glorified and therefore could not have given the Holy Spirit to the disciples (in the New Covenant sense). 32[32]
Therefore, John 20 is prophesy foretelling of a future event-- namely, Pentecost. 33[33] This position is weak since all three
verbs within the text are in the present tense. Indeed, one can not make the last verb to mean 'you will receive the Holy
Spirit'.34[34] It would seem consistent with John's purpose that the impartation, although not a full impartation, was indeed
real. "Before His departure, He graciously gives them, not only their mission, but also the experience of the Spirit they
need until His full coming at Pentecost.35[35] It light of this, one would be hard-pressed to prove the existence of a
Christian church prior to Pentecost from John 20. Although the disciples were regenerated, they were so in the Old
Testament sense-- they did not have the permanent infilling of the Spirit that was provided for the New Testament
believers. The followers of Christ prior to Pentecost show none of the signs of Christian community so clearly depicted
in Acts-- such as apostolic teaching (2:42) and baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (2:41). Also, the entire
company of the 120 early believers is blessed, and the Spirit's presence is not restricted to select individuals. Rather, the
Spirit's presence, first given at Pentecost, is the abiding possession of the community." 36[36]
In lieu of this evidence, Pentecostals have mistakenly viewed John 20 as the initial infilling of the Spirit in the lives of the
disciples. It is, therefore, wrong for them to consider Pentecost as a necessary second experience in the lives of the
believers. After all, just a few chapters after the Pentecost narrative, in Acts 4:31, do we see Peter and John, along with a
number of others, again filled with the Holy Spirit after the place where they were meeting was shaken as a result of the
30[30]. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace, p.240.
31[31]. Howard M. Ervin. Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Peabody,
Mass: Henrickson Publishers, 1984.) p.52.
32[32]. See John 7:37-39.
33[33]. J.I. Packer. Keep in Step with the Spirit. (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell Co., 1984.) p.88.
34[34]. Hummel. Fire in the fireplace, p.241. Note: that an impartation did actually take place
when Jesus breathed on them.
35[35]. The climax of the passage (vss 19-23) is not so much the impartation of the Spirit, but the
disciple's responsibility regarding forgiveness of sins. John relates the impartation not to an
inner experience but to vocational service-- that is the forgiveness of sin.
36[36]. Ralph P. Martin. New Testament Foundations, vol.2. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.)
p.73.

Spirits powerful presence.37[37]

Traditional theologians have also erred by perceiving Jesus' impartation of the Spirit as

a future event relating to salvation rather than service. Both groups have not interpreted the Pentecost narrative in lieu of
Luke's theological intent. Luke has a theological interpretation of this Pentecost event-- that is, the disciples were filled
with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). Peter quotes Joel in Acts 2:17, And it shall be in the last days,' God says, 'that I will
pour fourth My Spirit upon all mankind; and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions...
It is significant that Peter quotes Joel rather than Ezekiel 36:26-27 which focuses on the "inward cleansing activity of the
Spirit for a new life and righteous living" which also takes place in the New Age. Yet Peter is not presenting this
perspective. The "immediate result of the Spirits' being poured out is not moral living but prophetic activity for powerful
witness, as Jesus had promised."38[38] Pentecostals can not, therefore, use Pentecost as a model of second inner experience
following conversion since Luke's intention is primarily service, not a second stage of one's inner spiritual development.
The fact that Pentecost is such a unique experience "rules it out as a model for all later Christians." 39[39] The disciple's
experience does, however, "present a model for the church mission in the world. Filling with the Holy Spirit for effective
witness and service is normative for all Christians." 40[40]
It is important to note that although Jesus promises the disciples that they will "be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many
days from now (Acts 1:5)", Luke "attributes the unusual behavior of the disciples on the day of Pentecost to their being
"filled with the Spirit".41[41] Luke uses this phrase nine times in Luke-Acts (compared to Paul's one) and is his most
common description of the activity of the Holy Spirit. 42[42] The filling of the Spirit at Pentecost is not a isolated event, for
people such as John (Luke 1:15), Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zacharias (Luke 1:67), Peter (Acts 4:8), and Paul (Acts 9:17;
13:52) "filled" with the Spirit on specific occasions. Thus it is not a once-for-all event, but is repetitive. 43[43] According to

37[37]. Kilian McDonald & George T. Montague. Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit
(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 31.
38[38]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.181. Note: With regards to the Cornelius event in Acts,
Peter writes that "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning." "As he
had on us" is a reference to the prophetic activity of the Spirit at baptism.
39[39]. Ibid., p.95. Note: At Pentecost, the 120, who were born and raised under the Old
Covenant, received the gift of the Holy Spirit. No longer was the gift given to a select few, but to
all who believed (Acts 2:17).
40[40]. Ibid., p.95.
41[41]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.53.
42[42]. Ibid., p.53.
43[43]. Ibid., p.54. Note: Both Peter (2:4; 4:8; 4:31) and Paul (9:17; 13:9) demonstrate the
repetitive character of the filling of the Spirit.

the verses cited above, it would seem that Luke's phrase "filled with the Spirit" is always used to describe prophetic
inspiration44[44], power to witness, or glossolalia.45[45]
This would seem to take the unique character away from the Pentecost experience-- it does not. The language used to
describe Pentecost is extensive-- for it is at once a clothing, a baptizing, and empowering, a filling, and an outpouring of
the Holy Spirit. No single term adequately denotes the meaning of the gift of the Spirit, but each makes its own
contribution to the total meaning of the Pentecost event. 46[46] Therefore it takes on all that which is implied in the Lukan
phrase, "filled with the Spirit", while also maintaining the distinctiveness of the Pentecost event-- which is the
inauguration of the New Age and the establishment of the New Testament church.
Luke explains the pouring forth at Pentecost through the words of Joel, Jesus, and Peter-- all of whom support that
Pentecost involves the prophetic activity of the Spirit. 47[47] Luke also makes it clear that at Pentecost, the baptism in the
Spirit empowered the disciples for witness, as does the filling. Yet the filling seems to fall on an "individual or a group in
order to meet a specific need, whether for bold preaching or prophesy or healing. 48[48] Acts 1:8 confirms this, "but you
shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses..." 49[49] The purpose of Spirit
baptism is proclamation.

Understanding the Holy Spirit in Acts

Pentecostal theology is derived chiefly from four passages in Acts which are supposed to speak of believers who receive
the gift of the Spirit subsequent from regeneration. 50[50] It is crucial that each passage be dealt with individually in
accordance with the theological intent of the author. The first passage deals with the conversion of Saul in Acts 9:1-18.
While riding to Damascus to persecute the church, A light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground
and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' And he said, 'Who art thou Lord?' And He
44[44]. Craig S. Keener, Three Questions about the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1996), p. 35.
45[45]. See Lk 1:15,41,67; Ac 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9, 52.
46[46]. Ibid., p.61.
47[47]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. p.32. Note: Many dispensationalists
argue, as does Merill Unger, that the "this is that" in Acts 2:16 means no more than "this is (an
illustration of) that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel". (see Dunn, p.47)
48[48]. Note that Paul's single use of the phrase "filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) parallels Luke's
usage. For Paul the filling is a repetitive and is an activity which is "prophetic in the broad sense
of teaching, counseling, praising, and giving thanks."(Hummel, p.117)
49[49]. See also Luke 24:49.
50[50]. Many say that Pentecostal are wrong to build such a doctrine from Act. In lieu of the
discussion above concerning didactic and descriptive passages, this notion is incorrect. What
Pentecostals and traditional theologians must begin to do is interpret passages of scripture in
lieu of the author's purpose.

said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told to you what to do (3b-6).
When Saul got up off the ground, he found that he could not see. Later, in verses 17-18, after Ananias laid his hands upon
Saul, Saul regained his sight and was baptized. Pentecostals understand this passage to say that Saul, who was saved on
the Damascus road, was baptized in the Spirit three days later. Yet there is no reason to believe that Saul was converted
until after his encounter with Ananias.51[51]
The context for Saul's being filled with the Spirit, however, is not so much Paul's conversion but commission. Luke is
"not concerned to teach a specific sequence of repentance, baptism, reception of the Spirit, and the need for a particular
manifestation as evidence of his (Paul's) filling." 52[52] The point is that the Lord called Paul and empowered him to fulfil
his commission to the Gentiles. Thus, "filled with the Spirit" (9:17) is the necessary complement to the charge, "bear My
name before the Gentiles".53[53] Whereas Pentecostals use this passage to show the existence of a second work of grace,
the traditional theologians go out of their way to prove that Saul's baptism was not subsequent to baptism. Both are
wrong in that they fail to interpret the passage in light of the authors intent. 54[54]
Another passage used to support the reception of the gift of the Spirit after regeneration is Acts 19:1-7. Here, Paul
approaches the 'Ephesian dozen' and asked whether they received the Spirit when they believed. After they said no, Paul
gave them a more complete understanding regarding Jesus. The Spirit then comes upon them and they spoke with
tongues and were prophesying. Traditionally, theologians have considered the Ephesian disciples (of John) to be nonChristian.55[55] James Dunn states that the "twelve Ephesians are therefore further examples of men who were not short of
Christianity, but were not yet Christians because they lacked the vital factor-- the Holy Spirit." 56[56]
Again, Luke's purpose is not inner spiritual development but the mission of the church. Paul's statement, "did you receive
the Holy Spirit when you believed?" should not interpreted in an initiatory or soteriological context. 57[57] It would seem
that the context out of which Paul's statement came is found in what eventually took place-- tongues and prophesy.
Luke's lesson here, as it is throughout Acts, "lies in the vocational or prophetic function of the Holy Spirit's filling; that is,
when the Holy Spirit comes upon the believer, he does so in order to equip for "declaring the wonders of God" (Acts
2:11).58[58] Paul is not asking the Ephesians whether the Spirit has "baptized them into the body of Christ" (I Corinthians
51[51]. Speaking of this same incident, Acts 22:16 adds Ananias' statement to Paul, "And why do
you delay? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." Clearly
Ananias did not view Saul as a believer.
52[52]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.102.
53[53]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.66.
54[54]. It should be noted that Luke's purpose is consistent in all these passages-- the mission of
the church, not the inner spiritual experience of the believer.
55[55]. See Michael Green. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1975.) p.134.
56[56]. Dunn. Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p.83.
57[57]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.68.
58[58]. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace, p.105.

12) or regenerated them. Rather he is asking them whether they have received the prophetic gift of the Spirit. Luke
found no tension between "the fact of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer and an additional
experience of receiving the prophetic or charismatic gift of the Spirit." 59[59]
The third passage, causing disputes between Pentecostals and traditional theologians concerns the Samaritan converts in
Acts 8: 14-19. Many Samaritans respond to the preaching of Philip-- they believed and were baptized (water). When
news of this reached the apostles in Jerusalem, they sent two representatives, Peter and John to pray for the Samaritans
who were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (8:16). When Peter and John lay their hands on these new converts,
they received the Holy Spirit (vs 17). Like the previous passages, Pentecostals use this passage to defend their position of
a second 'work of grace' (i.e. the baptism in the Holy Spirit). 60[60] Traditional theologians defend their position that the
baptism in the Holy Spirit is at regeneration by rejecting the notion that the Samaritans were saved people. Dunn states
that the Samaritans never really believed at all-- their attention was fixed only on Philip, not Jesus. 61[61] In light of the
healings, exorcisms, and joy (vs. 7-8) which were associated with the Samaritan's belief, Dunn's assertion can hardly be
correct.
Michael Green offers a better solution. He claims that the Lord held back His Spirit in order that the century-old split
between the Jews and Samaritans would not take place in the Church. "If the Samaritans had been baptized, the ancient
schism may have continued which would have created two churches out of fellowship with each other." 62[62] Through the
laying on of hands by Peter and John, the Jerusalem church could express their solidarity with the converts. 63[63]
Having established the fact that the Samaritans were indeed Christians, "receive the Spirit" in verse 15 can not be
referring to regeneration-- since one can not be a Christian without the Spirit (Romans 8:9). When the reception of the
Spirit in Acts is described in terms of initiation and conversion, the mistake of reading Paul into Luke has been made. For
the Samaritans, this "later receiving of the Spirit was a charismatic manifestation, not the completion of their initiationconversion into the church."64[64] As it has been emphasized, for Luke, the Gift of the Spirit has a vocational purpose-equipping the disciples for service. "Because the gift of the Spirit is charismatic or vocational and is bestowed upon
believers, then the temporal separation between belief and the reception of the Spirit, as is evident in the Samaritan
narrative, poses no theological inconsistencies or contradiction." 65[65]

59[59]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.68.

60[60]. Howard M. Ervin suggests that the Samaritan account can be considered the 'Pentecost'
of Samaria. See Conversion- Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p.25-39.
61[61]. Green. I Believe in the Holy Spirit, p.138.
62[62]. Ibid., p.138. Note: Acts 15 depicts how carefully the Jewish/Gentile split was avoided by
early Christians.(Green, p.138)
63[63]. Ibid., p.138.
64[64]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.100.
65[65]. Stronstad. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p.64. Hummel states, "when Luke's
purpose guides interpretation, his meaning is clear. Here again, he teaches the prophetic or
vocational role of the Spirit in the historical development of the church."(Hummel, p.101)

The last passage, Acts 10:44-46, records the occasion where the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the
message (10:44) Peter had presented to the house of Cornelius. Those listening began "speaking in tongues and exalting
God" (vs.46). Peter then orders them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (vs.48). James Dunn notes that this verse
shows that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is God's act of acceptance, forgiveness, cleansing and salvation-- not something
separate from salvation.66[66] Pentecostals consider Cornelius either to have been saved prior to his receiving the Spirit or
after he was regenerate. Whereas the one interprets outside the theological framework set by the author, the other reads
too much into the text.
Peter clearly identifies the gift of the Spirit to Cornelius with Pentecost (11:15; 15:8). Therefore, "the gift of the Spirit to
the household of Cornelius has the same vocational or charismatic purpose as the gift of the Spirit to the disciples on the
day of Pentecost."67[67] This incident demonstrated to Peter and those circumcised believers accompanying him, that the
"gift of the Holy Spirit had poured out upon the Gentiles also (vs 45)." Indeed, God makes no distinction between Jews
and Gentiles-- all can receive the prophetic gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:17).

Paul's Theology of Spirit Baptism

In I Corinthians 12:13 Paul writes, For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks,
whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. When read against the backdrop of verse four, Now
there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit, it is clear that Paul is teaching of the unity they have in Christ which
undergirds their diversity. Whatever differences believers might have, there is one body and all Christians must be
baptized into it (by the Spirit).68[68] This baptism is "the forming of that organic relation between Christ and the
believer."69[69] Here, not in Luke, is where we find the inner life of an individual believer being discussed. It must be
emphasized that Paul's notion of baptism is not synonymous with Luke's. 70[70]

Conclusion and Challenge

Pentecostals have, as we have seen, rightly understood much of Luke's purpose and meaning of the baptism with the Holy
Spirit. In three passages (LK 24:47-49; Acts 1:4-5; 1:8) "Jesus describes the nature and purpose of His promised baptism
66[66]. Dunn. Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p.81.
67[67]. Ibid., p.67.
68[68]. Green. I Believe in the Holy Spirit, p.141.
69[69]. Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology, vol.6. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 19
.) p.142.
70[70]. Note: Pentecostals do much to reconcile this verse with their view of a 'second work of
grace'. They are now making the error of reading Luke into Paul. For example, Dennis Bennet
sees two separate events in ICor 12:13. Spiritual baptism into Christ at regeneration, followed
by the "baptism with the Holy Spirit in which the now indwelling Holy Spirit poured forth to
manifest Jesus to the world through the life of the believer." See Bennet. The Holy Spirit and
You. (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1979.) p.23.

with the Spirit. As the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples, they will be clothed with power from on high to become
witnesses to the ends of the earth. Well before Pentecost, the baptism with the Holy Spirit is given theological
interpretation-- empowering for mission."71[71] Traditional theologians must also come to such an understanding. In light
of our previous discussion, however, it is clear that they have incorrectly viewed this event as a second experience,
separate from conversion. Their attempt at reading ICor.12:13 as supportive of a second experience of the Spirit is
invalid.72[72]
Traditional theologians correctly interpret I Corinthians 12:13 to refer to the Spirit's action of incorporating a believer into
the body of Christ. They err, however, in their massive attempt to squeeze Luke into this mold. They must remember that
the basic meaning of 'baptidzo' and 'bapto' is to immerse or wash and does not always convey the idea of initiation. "To
insist that 'baptism' always implies initiation is to fail to recognize the different meanings a word can convey." 73[73]
Another error of traditional theologians comes as a result of the wedge they drive between didactic and narrative portions
of scripture. To say the writings of Paul are didactic and therefore normative for doctrine, thereby dismissing Luke
merely as a historian has no scriptural merit.
Clearly, both Pentecostal and Evangelical theologians have fallen short in their attempts at interpreting scripture. Rather
than continue this debate, these groups should recognize that the New Testament does not present the baptism in the Spirit
which must refer either to the beginning of the Christian life or to subsequent experiences. Paul teaches a Spirit-baptism
into the body of Christ which also involves regeneration, sealing and indwelling by the Spirit. This is part and parcel of
becoming a Christian because "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Romans 8:9).
Luke teaches a baptism in the Spirit which is a pouring out and a filling of the Spirit to endue with power for witness and
service. From his perspective it is neither the first nor the second stage of salvation in the life of the individual. Rather it
is a repeated filling with the Spirit which manifests His presence as a sign of the New Age. 74[74]
For years now Pentecostals and Evangelicals have been at odds over this whole issue of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Clearly we must stop this bickering within the army of the living God. This 'civil war' has allowed the enemy to gain
much ground. Evangelicals scoff at the so-called excesses of the Pentecostals, claiming that their position is based purely
on experience. Our lack of 'experience' as Evangelicals should cause us to laugh only at ourselves, for our dead
orthodoxy has done nothing to reach the millions of unreached peoples throughout the world. Indeed, traditional
theologians can also be held responsible for developing their theology, not from experience, but their lack of experience.
That is, since they have not seen God heal, many reject the notion that God no longer heals as He had in the New
Testament. It is their fervor to know God that has made the Pentecostalists the fastest growing missions force in the
world.
Thanks be to God for the Pentecostals and the charismatic movement, which has recaptured for the church the
"dynamic, charismatic activity of the Spirit. They have reminded the Evangelical world of the believers great need to be
71[71]. Hummel. Fire in the Fireplace, p.82.
72[72]. Some Pentecostals will read "baptized into one body" as regeneration and "to drink of one
Spirit" as a second experience. (Hummel, p.183)
73[73]. Ibid., p.184. Note: Clark Pinnock recognizes that baptism is a "flexible metaphor, not a
technical term."(Hummel, p.185)
74[74]. Ibid., p.188. Note: Charles Hummel has done a marvelous job interpreting Luke and Paul
according to their own perspective.

supernaturally empowered by the Spirit of Power so that the church can operate in the greatest possible dimension of
life in the Spirit.75[75] Unfortunately, their notion of Spirit baptism as subsequent to salvation has caused many
Pentecostals to consider those brothers and sisters who have not been 'baptized' as inferior and lacking. It is time we, as
the body of Christ, remove our doctrinal labels which keep us in the trenches fighting one another. The Pentecostal in one
trench, dogmatic regarding the 'second work of grace', and the traditional evangelicals in another, fighting to interpret
Luke as though he were Paul. Surely, it is by one Spirit that we were all baptized into one body, in spite of our many
differences, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In recent years, the term Empowered Evangelicals 76[76] came into
circulation to describe those who find themselves in the gap between the Pentecostal and non-cessationist Evangelicals.
In my opinion, more and more pastors, lay leaders, and congregants in the Church today, are feeling lost in this excluded
middle between these polar positions. The position held by the Vineyard has become a home for many of these people,
which accounts for much of their growth over the years. My prayer is that the Lord will continue to send to the church
men, such as John Wimber, who will contribute, as he has, toward the unity of Gods people.

http://www.ourvineyard.org/files/BAPTISM_IN_THE_HOLY_SPIRIT__Web.htm
13 10 11

75[75]. Thomas E. Trask & Wayne I. Goodall, The Blessing: Experiencing the Power of the Holy
Spirit Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998) p. 27.

76[76] This expression was introduced by Rich Nathan, Pastor of the Columbus Vineyard, & Ken Wilson, in their
book, Empowered Evangelicals: Bringing Together the Best of the Evangelical and Charismatic Worlds,
(Servant Publications, 1995).