This was part of an email exchange with a Christian who holds cessationist beliefs about the Holy Spirit. He is here referred to as Frazier or FC in this colour. Previous comments of mine are marked by OE: in this colour.
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 11:22 -0500, FC wrote:
Dear Oliver,
I am sincerely impressed with your ability to put your finger on key
issues in Christianity, and your succinct way of expressing that
and—usually—the truth.
I must however, take issue somewhat on the Holy Spirit.
I comment on some specific matters below...
OE: Until Jesus came, the Spirit was given to selected individuals through whom God chose to work. When Jesus came to earth, the Spirit was given to him in full measure at his baptism. He did no miracles or ministry until He had received the Spirit.
FC: I think this is a little too close to adoptionism. Wouldn't it be better to take more seriously the fact that Jesus' conception was by the power of the Spirit. Wouldn't this mean that Jesus was endowed with the Spirit since that time? Of course, the Spirit does come upon people at different times for different roles, to perform various offices. Perhaps there is some truth in both views.
John 1Certainly Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and he is the eternally pre-existent one ("Before Abraham was, I AM"), but the scripture makes a point of recording that the Holy Spirit descended on him. All four gospels mention this, so it is essential to the gospel. If this does not indicate a change of state, what is the point of it? Note too that it inaugurates a new direction for Jesus: the result of it is that he is sent into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. (This latter is not in John, the gospel of his divine nature, so we see that as a man, who goes through everything that we do, he is tempted, but God cannot be tempted (James 1:11) so that is not recorded by John.)
32 John testified, saying, 'I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him.
33 I didn't recognize him, but he who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me, "On whomever you will see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit."'
OE: In this age, the church is the body of Christ in the world and it is through the Holy Spirit that the church is being built.
FC: How does the Holy Spirit build the church? Is it not through the Scriptures that he inspired? One need not deny special providences, but if Holy Scripture is complete, then special providences of the Spirit must surely be somehow limited in any such role as upbuilding.
It is certainly the case that the scripture is complete and that the Holy Spirit will never lead anyone contrary to the scripture. But how can God the Spirit be limited in other ways? and why should we think that he is?
OE: God's power in the church. It is through the Spirit that God does anything in the church; by corollary, anything that the church does without the Spirit is dubious or worse [cf. Rom 14:23]. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to His disciples and that promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.
FC: Actually, was it not the Twelve who received the Spirit on Pentecost?
Acts 1
15 In these days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (and the number of names was about one hundred twenty), and said
...
26 They drew lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 2
1 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 Suddenly there came from the sky a sound like the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 Tongues like fire appeared and were distributed to them, and one sat on each of them.
4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit...
"They" refers to all the disciples throughout this passage.
When an explanation is called for:
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them...The twelve apostles have the special authority to declare the word of God, so they stand up to do their special job. In his speech Peter says:
15 For these aren't drunken, as you suppose...speaking of all the rest around him. If he were speaking only of himself and the other eleven standing with him it would be more natural to say "we".
Further, Matthias is obviously included here, but we see from Paul's being chosen as an apostle by Jesus, with the authority to declare the word of God, that the eleven had been wrong to try to fill their number by lot. Matthias did not qualify in one crucial respect: he had not been taken aside with the rest of the twelve at certain times in Jesus' ministry on earth, so he had not heard the whole counsel of God from the Lord. Paul did hear all from Jesus himself in heaven (2 Cor) and there are only twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev 21:14). I conclude then, that at this time there are only eleven apostles, not twelve, yet clearly the Holy Spirit fell on Matthias too.
OE: As soon as they received the Spirit, the disciples also received power. Jesus promised that the church would do greater things than He himself had done, and the power to do that comes from the Holy Spirit.
FC: I wonder if the worldwide spread of the gospel is not more what Jesus meant about 'greater' things. I seriously doubt if the early Christians had more power of the Spirit than did the Lord.
Indeed, I do not believe that they could have more than Jesus. I have learnt some more since I wrote that, and I am inclined to agree that those words of Jesus were spoken to the twelve rather than to the whole church through them. I'm not yet fully convinced of that, though. If we take that view, we have to say that some parts of Jesus' teaching and prayer at the last supper relate only to the twelve rather than to all Christians, and we have to sort out which bits are which.
OE: The Holy Spirit is given to the church to equip it for works of service in the world. Through the Holy Spirit the church is built up, and through the same Spirit the church goes into the world to make disciples.
FC: Wasn't the word of God given to build up the church. Acts 20:32. Matthew 28:18-20 sets forth a program in which the (inspired) apostles would preach and teach, and in this way make disciples and build up the church.Be careful. You didn't quote that correctly.
Matthew 28:The first command is to make disciples, part of which is teaching them to do ALL the things Jesus commanded them. It does not say that teaching by word is the only way, nor that the word is the only subject of teaching; rabbinical teaching is to live with your disciples, showing them as much as telling them. Just so had Jesus taught the apostles.
18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
FC: The widespread outpouring of the Spirit in the first century empowered prophecy and inspiration. This deposit of the gospel was recorded in Holy Scripture for us. It would seem that to displace the work of the word and Scripture by an overemphasis on the role of the Spirit is a mistake.
Since the scripture is complete, God's word is now our prime means of knowing his will. Anything that is now claimed to be prophecy is to be tested by the scripture. If it does not conform to the scripture, it must be rejected. An overemphasis on anything is (by definition) wrong. However the Spirit is not to be limited, because he will do what he will. It is just as wrong to refuse to acknowledge what he is doing as to claim that things are of him which are not.
The people who downplay scripture in favour of experience (Toronto, Pensecola, etc.) are deceived or deceivers; but Satan produces counterfeits of real things. He does not bother to counterfeit what is false. Our correct stance is to look eagerly for what God is doing now, but test everything.
OE: Jesus immerses in Holy Spirit. Every one of the four gospels reports John's message that Jesus would baptize in holy Spirit; it is given greater prominence than almost anything except the crucifixion and resurrection. The Greek word bapto means to immerse, dip or sink and baptizo (baptize) is an intensive form of bapto. The words 'baptism' and 'baptize' are simply transliterated from Greek; we would do better to translate them. When John came baptizing he was immersing people completely in the water. Similarly, Jesus immerses people completely in Holy Spirit (en pneumatic hagio - the definite article is missing in all four gospels). There is a deliberate analogy between the manner of being immersed in water and the manner of being immersed in Holy Spirit. The difference is in who does the immersing: we immerse people in water and Jesus immerses them in Holy Spirit. It is important to note that the analogy is complete. When someone has been immersed in water, both he and everyone else knows it. Similarly, when Jesus immerses someone in Holy Spirit, everyone knows it. If no-one sees any difference, it hasn't happened!
FC: Is it not the case that the Holy Spirit immersion was a historical event of the first century, a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2? It was to signify the inauguration of the availability of salvation in Christ. Inaugurations do not go on interminably.
The scripture does not say that this is only an inauguration. The prophecy of Joel is for the last days (and not completely fulfilled yet), and therefore speaks of all the time between the coming of the Spirit and the return of the Lord. In one sense, this is a time when the clock is stopped, between the 69th and 70th seven prophesied by Daniel, and we can logically regard all the church age as one time. Furthermore, there is nothing in the scripture which restricts Jesus to immersing only first century believers in Holy Spirit.
It was certainly visible to those who witnessed it. As I analyze it, the Twelve on Pentecost received a special empowerment of the Spirit. By their hands they conferred the Spirit on the other apostles, such as Paul (yes I believe there were others like Paul, --e.g. Ananias of Damascus, Barnabas, etc.--some at least of the 500 who had seen the risen Christ). Only the Twelve and these other apostolic men could then confer the special empowerments (the Holy Spirit baptismal event) on those who responded to the gospel (Acts 8:17-19).
This is nowhere stated in the scripture. It seems to me a doctrine imposed on the bible rather than derived from it. The cessationist idea confuses the special authority of the twelve apostles to write or supervise the writing of scripture with the whole endowment of the Spirit which is for all of the church.
The experience of the centuries shows many cases of works done in the power of the Spirit, along with many frauds. Every revival is accompanied by works of power, and also by deception and fraud. See Jessie Penn-Lewis: War on the Saints.
When the apostolic generation faded away, naturally so did the special empowerments. The empowerments of the Holy Spirit baptismal event [a widespread outpouring of the Spirit] were associated with assent to the gospel, but were not directly associated with or instrumental in individual personal salvation. It was not the policy to confer the Spirit on people antithetic to Christ.
To speak of policy implies that the apostles decided to give the Spirit to this or that person. But it is Jesus who baptizes in Holy Spirit, not men.
I agree that the apostles of the Lamb had a particular gift of works of power, for the purpose of authenticating the gospel, and that may be what Jesus meant in saying "greater works ... shall you do". But that does not preclude the rest of the church from sharing in the gifts of the Spirit; rather we are taught that everyone has some spiritual gift.
This explains why some sympathetic to the truth received the Spirit prior to baptism and some afterward. But no infidel receives the Spirit. (Acts 14:9 is instructive). Remember that many people had received empowerments down through the centuries who were not 'regenerate.' Some, (like the false prophet Balaam), were actually hostile to God's purposes. But God empowered them for a special purpose (Caiaphas). The indwelling of the Spirit and the visitations of the Spirit are two different roles. The Spirit only indwells God's people. But he may visit anyone. Empowerment with the Spirit does not equate to bearing the fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12-14; Galatians 3:1-5 compare 5:22-24).
That is so, since many who have received gifts of the Holy Spirit have then allowed themselves to be deceived and led into pride.
OE: Not optional. Initiation into the fellowship of the church has four elements, all of which are required: 1. Repentance of sins: the Holy Spirit convinces people of their sin and leads them to think again (the literal meaning of 'repent'). They need to declare this out loud.
FC: On the day of Pentecost people were stimulated to repent (Acts 2:36-41). First they heard the preaching of the gospel'the Spirit empowering Peter to proclaim it'then by the hearing of the word, they were cut to the heart.
Yes. The Spirit uses the word of God to convict us of sin.
2. Trust in Jesus: the Holy Spirit gives them faith to trust Jesus to save them from the penalty and the power of sin. This too must be declared out loud.
3. Immersion in water: as a sign to the world that they have repented and trusted in Jesus, the new believers must be immersed in water. We know when this has happened because they are soaking wet!
FC: Isn't the immersion in water more than a 'sign?' I think we have discussed this and agree on this point.
Yes.
4. Immersion in Holy Spirit: Jesus immerses the new believers in Holy Spirit, as a sign that they are indeed saved
FC: Jesus by the Spirit comes to indwell in the new believers. This promise and fact would not be possible if they were not saved. Immersion in the Spirit was rather a widespread bestowal of Holy Spirit empowerments, prophesied by Joel, and fulfilled in the first century. It confirmed and verified the arrival of the age of salvation. It empowered the preaching. It was not itself salvation, but merely indicated that henceforth: 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Acts 2:21).
As we have seen, baptism is for washing. Just as the sacrifices of bulls and goats could not take away sin, but were only a foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice, so baptism in water alone (the baptism of John) could only foreshadow the work of the Holy Spirit. It expressed the desire for repentance, but only baptism in Holy Spirit actually accomplishes the cleansing from sin; therefore everyone needs it, just as everyone needs to trust in the blood of Jesus.
5. OE: to give them the power to live a holy life, and to give them the power to do in the world the kind of things that Jesus did. We know when this has happened because they are soaked with Spirit: they start to speak as the Holy Spirit leads them, in other languages or in prophecy or praise in their own language.
FC: The fact, the great truth, of the indwelling of the Spirit of God, as taught by Paul, is so meaningful to those who enjoy that promise that they are moved to live righteously, to purify themselves, and to rejoice, and to pray, etc. Only those who had the special empowerments in the first century could speak in languages or prophesy. Such power is not dispensed today.
But it is. There are testimonies from all around the world of works of power done by God's people. Furthermore, 1 Cor 12-14 shows that Paul expects the gifts of the Spirit to be used by all members of the church, none of whom were apostles in the sense that the 12 were. If the pattern he gives there is only for the first century, what is the point of including it in the scripture, which was not even fully compiled until the second century?
Prophecy in the sense of giving new revelation is no longer available; apostleship as of the apostles of the Lamb is no longer available. But apostles and prophets are still needed to found churches and to speak God's mind about particular situations (always subject to testing against the scripture).
OE: Repentance, trust and immersion in water usually precede immersion in Holy Spirit, but the order can sometimes be different.
FC: This is because immersion in the Holy Spirit is (was) not directly instrumental in individual salvation. The precondition for empowerment by the laying on of the apostolic hands was an indication of receptivity to the gospel, faith in the limited sense of intellectual assent. No one received the empowerments following Pentecost who was not at least sympathetic to the preaching of the gospel
I would say that no one received them unless they repented and were baptized. But everyone who repented and was baptized received the Spirit.
OE: All four elements should normally be so close in time as to be considered as one event. 1 Cor 12:13 shows that immersion in one Spirit (en eni pneumati - the same words as in the accounts of John's message, not 'by' Spirit, as it is mistranslated) is part of initiation and is necessary to build a believer into the body,
FC: Was the conversion of the Samaritans so close in time to the event of their reception of the Spirit? One would hardly think so. The problem was that no apostolic person had been present to lay hands on them.
I think the reason is otherwise; see below.
On 1 Corinthians 12:13, a couple of points. My apologies, the following is an excerpt from my book on the Holy Spirit:
Most translators rightfully prefer the rendering 'by' one Spirit, rather than 'in' one Spirit (27 to 11, in one survey of translators).
The primary meaning of "en" is "in", but it also used Hebraically to correspond to Hebrew "b'" (or "v'"). Which one to choose may come down to the translators' different understandings of the passage. Therefore to say "rightfully" is rather to prejudge the issue.
Certain matters about the passage are clear:
(1) It is known that Paul's normal usage of the word baptize is 'immerse in water.' In fact, every time Paul uses the word baptize (20 times) he means an immersion in water (one instance is figurative, but it is figurative of water immersion). This fact initiates a presupposition in favor of the same usage of baptizo here.
I think you overstate this. I searched the WEB bible for "bapti" from Romans to Hebrews:
Romans 6:
3 Or don't you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
No mention of water here; it could be either or both of water and Spirit. Burial could hint at the physical act of submersion, but Paul is not really thinking of physical things here.
I Cor 1:
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name.
16 (I also baptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don't know whether I baptized any other.)
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel 'not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn't be made void.
Here he is plainly speaking of water baptism, but there is nothing here to exclude the idea that this would be accompanied by Spirit baptism. After all, it is Jesus who baptizes in Holy Spirit, so Paul would not claim to do that.
1 Cor 10:
1 Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
If you want to press this one, cloud and sea are plainly analogous to Spirit and water.
1 Cor 12:
13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all given to drink into one Spirit.
This only mentions Spirit, but I would assume water is also indicated.
Gal 3:
26 For you are all children of God, through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Here the stress is on baptism as incorporating us into Christ and making us one. There is nothing here to indicate whether Paul is thinking of water or Spirit or both.
Eph 4:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you also were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.
It is the same here; the stress is on baptism as a unifying experience.
Col 2:
9 For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
10 and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power;
11 in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 You were dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh. He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Here he speaks of being buried in baptism, which is more likely to refer to going under the water, but does not exclude baptism in Spirit as well.
Heb 6:
1 Therefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on to perfection'not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, of faith toward God,
2 of the teaching of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Note that there is more than one baptism in view here. Scripture refers to baptism in water, baptism in Holy Spirit and also to baptism in the Lord's sufferings (I think, but it must be translated differently in WEB - I can't find it).
(2) Second, it is known that when Paul wants to discuss the unity of the church he often brings up (water) baptism (1 Corinthians 1:13ff; Romans 6.3-4; 1 Corinthians 10.2; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 4.5). That is also his topic in 1 Corinthians 12.
Yes, but as we have just seen, it is not correct to claim that he is only thinking about water.
(3) It is also clearly unnatural and awkward to render: 'For in the element of Spirit we were all immersed in the element of water.' The Spirit of truth would surely have found a better way to express himself. Nor is this what the passage states in a literal sense.
Are you still talking about 1 Cor. 12:13? Literally (straight out of the Greek):
For also in one Spirit we all into one body were immersed, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all one Spirit were made to drink.
You have imported the idea of water against the sense. Obviously, they had all been baptised in water, but Paul is talking of the work of the Spirit in building them into a single body, which is a supernatural work that only the Spirit can do.
(4) It is plain that in the book of Acts (which has by far the most to say about Holy Spirit baptism), water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism are clearly distinguished. In Acts, in every case where baptism (water immersion) is mentioned in context with a reception of the Spirit, there is a disconnect or gap between them. Sometimes the empowerment of the Spirit is received prior to baptism as in (a) the case of the Twelve Apostles (Acts 2:1ff; presumably they could not have been baptized for the remission of sins on the basis of the completed work of Christ until after his resurrection, and thus they were likely baptized on the day of Pentecost along with the 3,000);
Hmm. Who baptized them? An argument from silence is dangerous.
(b) the case of Paul (the most reasonable explanation of 9:17-18 is that his healing signified his reception of the Spirit, followed later
immediately, as I read it
by his baptism); and as in the case of (c) Cornelius (Acts 10).
All these support my contention that the two belong together.
In other instances, the Spiritual empowerment is received at some varying distance in time subsequent to baptism, as in the example of (d) the Samaritan converts (Acts 8); (e) the twelve Ephesian disciples (Acts 19); and yes, (f) even the converts on Pentecost'note the future tense of 2:38, 'you shall receive.' To entwine Spirit-filling and water-immersion in 1 Corinthians 12:13 creates a conflict with the teaching in Acts.
I don't agree at all. The Ephesian disciples had only received the baptism of John (water only). Paul baptised them in water in the name of Jesus and they received the Holy Spirit immediately he laid hands on them. Notice verse 2:
1 It happened that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples.
2 He said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' They said to him, 'No, we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'
[Wrong translation of the last verse - first, "Holy Spirit" does not have a definite article; second, since John taught that his successor would baptize in Holy Spirit, they must know that the Holy Spirit exists. They mean they have not heard that Holy Spirit is available.]
Obviously there is something about these men that causes Paul to ask the question. On hearing they have not received Holy Spirit he then asks what kind of baptism they have had. The clear implication is that baptism in the name of Jesus would involve baptism in Holy Spirit and that this would make a difference in their lives that Paul looked for and did not find.
So this leaves the case of the Samaritans as the only one where there is a significant disjunction between baptism in water and baptism in Holy Spirit. You wish to explain it by claiming that only the apostles of the Lamb could baptise in Holy Spirit; I think it more likely that the long-standing enmity between Jews and Samaritans was to be healed in the church by Peter himself, just as Peter was the first to admit Gentiles into the church. For that purpose was he given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
(5) If Paul speaks here of Spirit baptism, where are his parallel passages? Where else does he use the terminology of Holy Spirit baptism? He does not. However, we do have, in 1 Corinthians 6:11, a parallel passage to the Spirit as active or agent, 'And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.' (Some translators again mistakenly render 'in' rather than 'by' the Spirit.)
In this case "Spirit" has the definite article so I agree that he is here the washer rather than the medium in which they are washed. But your distinction depends on your incorrect assertion that all Paul's other mentions of baptism refer only to water.
(6) Finally, since baptizo, when used alone technically means 'immerse in water,' it would seem that to specify baptism in Spirit the apostle would have been careful to avoid misunderstanding by placing the specified element (Spirit) next to the word baptize. But in the Greek text, Spirit and baptize are separated by no less than five words.
I disagree that baptism, in the New Testament, means only "immerse in water". In the secular world, that can be taken for granted, since water is the only liquid generally available to immerse anything of any size. But the gospels introduce baptism with John the baptizer immersing in water and prophesying one who will immerse in Holy Spirit. Then all who come into the church at Pentecost are immersed in Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and I believe all who come into it afterwards. We do not read of any believers who do not receive baptism in Holy Spirit.
Therefore, baptism in Holy Spirit is a universal experience and would be taken for granted whenever the apostles speak of baptism. The only reason for distinguishing water and Holy Spirit would be if there were some theological point to make, which is indeed the case with the three exceptions in Acts.
In every other case, baptism in water and Holy Spirit go together and this is not mentioned because it is normal and taken for granted.
If we draw our conclusions from what is known, we should understand that Paul is saying that by the agency of the one Spirit (the Spirit as a true participant in baptism), all the Corinthians were immersed in water. And in addition, the Corinthians were given to 'drink of one Spirit.' That is, the Corinthians had conferred on them the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is not the usual opinion of commentators, but it is not un-heard of (see H. L. Goudge, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, London: Methuen, 1926; pp. 112-113).
I would say rather, they were immersed in Holy Spirit (as it were on the outside for cleansing) and they also were given to drink of Holy Spirit (on the inside for filling and for producing fruit). Remember that we are commanded to be filled with the Spirit. (Eph 5:18)
Their common baptism in water was one mark of the unity of the Corinthian church. A second mark of their unity was that many of them had received the special gifts from the same Spirit. The two blessings are enumerated separately, and there is no reason to confuse them.
Strike "in water"! You have read that into the passage. And not just some, but all of them had gifts of the Spirit. Paul tells them "you can all prophesy, one by one" and "I want you all to speak in tongues".
Similarly, the Ephesian disciples of Acts 19 were baptized, and then Paul laid his hands on them so that they might receive empowerments. Thus 1 Corinthians 12:13, does include a reference to the Corinthians' participation in the empowerments of the Holy Spirit baptism. But it does not overlay water immersion and Spirit baptism, which is the error advocated. In Paul's writings, he always distinguishes between the indwelling Spirit associated with the sanctified Christian life (Galatians 5:22ff), and the empowerments of the Spirit (not always thus associated'see for example, 1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 13:2; 14:1ff).
I don't disagree with that, but you press the distinction too far. He lays hands on them to receive Holy Spirit at the same time that he baptizes them; the two belong together; the distinction is that he (a man) baptizes in water but he must ask Jesus to baptize in Holy Spirit, because that is Jesus' special ministry. We should be doing the same.
OE: Rom 8:9 shows that anyone who does not have the Spirit (that is, presumably, someone who does not show evidence that the Spirit is in him) is not of the Spirit. (ei de tis pneuma christou ouk ekei, houtos ouk estin autou). Most translations say that such a one does not belong to Christ, but it may be that autou refers back to pneuma. The message of verses 9-11 is that the presence of the Spirit of Jesus in us is a guarantee that we will be raised to new life like Jesus. It is hardly reasonable, then, to suggest that we have to believe that we have received this guarantee without any evidence!)
FC: Did the Jews require evidence that the Spirit of God indwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple? The fact was affirmed to them by the word of God, they believed it, and was it ever meaningful to them!
They got evidence:
2 Chr 5:and when they sinned, in the end the glory departed (Ez 10:18)
13 it happened, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking Yahweh; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised Yahweh, saying, For he is good; for his loving kindness endures forever; that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of Yahweh,
14 so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of Yahweh filled the house of God.
(Note, incidentally, that the glory filled the temple when "the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound...". Similarly, the church is required to be of one mind (1 Cor 1:10) and its failure here grieves the Holy Spirit and probably has a lot to do with the absence of his gifts in the Western church.)
OE: In the book of Acts, we see a number of occasions when Holy Spirit was given. The times when people were not immersed in Holy Spirit at the same time as being immersed in water are all special cases:
FC: An excellent insight. And what a shame that in each case where one might see applied the supposed sense of Acts 2:38, we instead find an 'exception.' How can all the examples of a rule, if they are exceptions, prove the rule? In Acts, the giving of the Holy Spirit is associated with virtually none of the accounts of persons becoming Christians (see the conversions of those at Solomon's porch, 4:4; the priests, 6:7; the Ethiopian, 8:35ff; the residents of Lydda and Sharon, 9:35; the residents of Joppa, 9:42; Sergius Paulus, 13:12; the Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch, 13:44ff; the residents of Iconium, 14:1ff; the residents of Derbe and Lystra, 14:8-21; Lydia, 16:11ff; the jailer, 16:25ff; the Thessalonians, 17:1ff; the Bereans, 17:10ff; the Athenians, 17:22ff; Crispus and the Corinthians, 18:8; and the Ephesians, 19:18). Nor is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the following appeals for conversion: Peter to the audience in Solomon's Porch (3:12-26); Paul to those of Pisidian Antioch (13:16ff); Paul to the Ephesian elders in the summary of his preaching to them (20:21); Paul to Felix (24:24-25); or Jesus' commissioning of Paul's preaching (26:17-18, cf. 26:20). These facts would appear to be rather remarkable, since it is often claimed that the essence of salvation in Acts is the work of the Holy Spirit in an individual's heart. In fact, in Acts, the conversion of no one is dependent on the reception of the Holy Spirit. This is true because in Acts Luke is focusing entirely upon the temporary extraordinary gift, not the indwelling gift of the Spirit as set forth elsewhere in the NT.
Right at the beginning, Peter says "'Repent, and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.' (Acts 2:38-39)
The promise of the Spirit is to them (his hearers) and their children and to everyone whom God will call - that is the whole true church. If you try to split the gift of the Holy Spirit from the promise, it makes nonsense of the passage, for it removes all content from the promise.
The reason the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in all those passages is that he is the universal common denominator. All had experienced him in baptism and in filling. We do not normally talk about the air we breathe and the ground we walk on, because these are common to all of us. If someone does not have the Holy Spirit, he is not in the church at all, so there is no need to mention the Spirit on every occasion.
Best wishes to you
Original article on the Holy Spirit
Oliver Elphick
26th September 2005