This blog post has been revised and turned into a chapter in The Rethinking Series.
The series includes each book in PDF, Kindle, and Nook formats.
Click here to view the Table of Contents for each book and how to get it
Frank Viola | Beyond Evangelical
Official Blog of Author & Speaker Frank Viola. Digging below the surface and moving beyond the shallows in today's Christianity.
Rethinking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: Part III
Bro Frank,
I appreciate this article you have written. I do agree with your assessment that there could be sometimes excesses in the Pentecostal movement (Frank Bartleman …I enjoyed that book too)
But I would like to make a comment about Acts 19. You wrote about the 12 men in Acts 19 “When Paul asked them if they had received the Spirit since/when they believed, he was essentially asking: “Were you baptized into Christ, which endows you with the Holy Spirit? Or were you baptized only in John’s baptism?” They answered that they had only been baptized with the baptism of John”
Reading the text, Paul did not know that they were disciples of John the Baptist when he initially met them. Paul’s question “Did you received the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Acts 19 : 2 (NIV) Paul was basically asking them did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed the gospel. This question shows that Paul thought they were believers who might have not yet received the Holy Spirit. It was only after they told Paul that they had not heard about the Holy Spirit was when Paul asked them “Then how were you baptized” and told him John’s baptism.
So from the text, Paul thought they were believers who might have not received the Holy Spirit.
I think this shows that the baptism of the Holy Spirit does not always happen immediately a person believes on Christ, else Paul would not have been asking such a question.
Now, as to whether tongues is the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I am not a hardliner on that. I just wanted to comment that Paul’s question in Acts 19 implies the baptism of the Holy Spirit does not always happen upon believing in Christ.
On a somewhat funny note, I wish those disciples had answered Paul “We have believed, but how do we know we have received the Holy Spirit?” and then Paul would have given an answer, and we won’t be having this discussion right now…lol
In Christ’s love.
Tom. You’re describing one interpretation of that text, the Pentecostal view. Scholars debate what Paul was asking there. My interpretation is supported by many of them.
Frank, I disagree with this statement you made.” Acts 2: This was the first time the Jews had received the Spirit and were plunged into the body of Christ.”
For some of those in Acts 2, it was clearly their second Encounter with the Spirit. his is clear from John 20 and Luke 24. It says the 11 were there along with others. In John 20, Jesus breathed on them and said receive the spirit. I believe Luke 24 is the same encounter. It say Jesus opened their understanding… How they had received the spirit (John 20). And yet he told them to wait for more. Peter was probably ready to blast off after his John 20 experience, but Jesus told him to simmer down and wait for more.
Albert J.
I’m aware of what happened to the eleven (minus Judas). See the comments. I was speaking of the 120 generally. If that’s the only thing you disagree with . . . which isn’t a disagreement at all . . . then that’s pretty encouraging!
Frank, are you assuming Jesus only “breathed” on the eleven? I’m suggesting the Spirirt was given to more than just the 11, and a good number of them were part of the 120. Albert J.
The text has in view the 11. Can’t remember if Thomas came in later or not (no time to check). If you have evidence that it was more than the 11, please send me the reference. Thx.
Brother Frank,
Thank you so much for this article. I am just curious about the relationship of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the pre-eminence and manifestation of Jesus in and thru us. I am not from the Pentecostal background but have known many brothers and sisters who have claimed the Baptism but Jesus was not central or the Source they lived by. I hope this makes sense.
Coming up in the series.
so, following this line that glossolalia/speaking in tongues was God’s manifest way of establishing his inclusion of new people groups into the New Covenant, should the Church wait for such an endorsement/manifestation from God when it comes to the inclusion of practicing homosexuals into the full life of the Church?
Only if it awaits the inclusion of practicing pedaphiles too.
Equating first century Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles with a sin that scripture condemns is bizarre.
and how much more bizarre would it have been to believe that the “uncircumcised and pork-eaters” of the first century would be included in God’s kingdom work? These were serious “sins” if you read the stuff that Paul had to wrestle with.
Apples and oranges. It’s not a sin to be Jewish, Gentile or Samaritan, but homosexual behavior is sin in the new testament. There is forgiveness for all sinners be they Jewish, Gentile or Samaritan.
It seems to me that in Acts 19 tongues and prophecy were consequences of the disciples’ immersions and in 1 Co. 12 they are gifts distributed by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of Body of Christ.
There is definitely a need for some “rightly dividing” on this subject.
The Hebrew Believers (6’1-3) had earlier been involved in “the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ”: so “the foundation” wasn’t going be laid again in this letter to them.
However,the specific ingredients of the basic foundational-mix were listed. Subsequent Believers have, therefore, Kingdom of God criteria to consider and benefit from.
So, equally with repentance, etc, the teaching of immersion in the Holy Spirit as part of the Believers’ Kingdom of God should be taught – hopefully as it is presented and without prejudice.
I’m feeling warm and tingly all over. Truth does that and I think we are getting closer to a better understanding. The dialogue today from my view has been excellent; things are becoming much clearer. Thanks Frank and others for your thoughts and insight.
I know this has nothing to do with your current blog topic, but I didn’t know where else to post it.
This is a big thank you. I can’t tell you how helpful your “How To Leave a Church” blog was. That small paragraph with information about writing a letter was just what we needed. We are leaving a small reformed church and moving on for various reasons. The pastors/elders are adamant about knowing why. Now we know how to graciously answer them without feeling too uncomfortable and going into too much detail. Thanks again for such a helpful blog. I am now subscribing. Blessings to you.
I’ll hang tight for the next one… I’m still not seeing how any of this lines up with there not being 2 types of tounges… one unknown to all men and one unknown to the speaker but of natural language.
What would be the point of speaking in another launguage (foreign to yourself) in your personal prayer time?
I’m really asking in the spirit of clarity and wanting to learn. I’m very cautiously trying not to assume you are saying anything you are not.
I think we may be miscommunicating about the “two kinds of tongues.”
The classic Pentecostal position says that there is a kind of tongues that is a gift. The “gift” of tongues. So not everyone has that, they say, quoting Paul in 1 Cor. 12.
The other kind is what every believer receives at “the baptism of the Spirit,” they say.
This construction allows the thesis to work in the face of Paul clearly saying that not everyone speaks in tongues.
What I’m saying is that there is no biblical warrant whatsoever to argue that “Paul was really talking about a different kind of tongues in 1 Cor. 12. He wasn’t speaking of the tongues given at the baptism of the Spirit.”
My response: Oh really? Where’s the biblical support for that?
This, to my mind, is special pleading. It’s making something very simple at face value very complex to fit a doctrine.
Regarding the nature of tongues, that’s a different question altogether. Linguists have recorded hundreds of people praying in tongues. And they have all said that it is not a human language. So this either means it’s a dead language or it’s “the language of angels” (unless one assumes it’s just gibberish).
At the same time, I have heard reports — nothing firsthand, mind you — that someone was praying in a church in tongues, and a person listening to it said, “They are praying in Russian.”
One can make of this what they will. What we do know is that on the Day of Pentecost it was a known language. The nature of everyone’s tongues is really a different question.
I hope my clarification at the front helps.
Yes, this helped… I was pretty hung up on that. I think I’ll reread in light of this response.
I’ve witnessed different ‘language’ toungues… thanks for taking the time to clarify what you meant by ‘two tongues’.
This helps with my question too. And until my mother’s best friend, a really sweet Christian and sensible person, told me her personal experience of being told she was praying in Italian, I had never heard a first hand account of this. Of course, for a strong skeptic, we would need at the least the corroboration of the lady who said it was Italian. 🙂
If linguists have recorded tongues (first I’ve heard of it, documentation, Frank?), then do we assume that this miraculous sign is a miracle of hearing and not of speaking? That is, the person speaking could be using any language whatever and the person listening hears it in their own language?
No time to dig that up for you. I’ve read it in many books on tongues when I was exploring the issue years ago.
Having been brought up in the Plymouth Brethren but fellowshipped in Charismatic-type circles for many years I have experienced (and largely resisted) many of the “high pressure” techniques used to produce tongues, being “slain in the Spirit” and other physical manifestations. I do not disagree with most of what you have written but would take issue with the interpretation given to the Ephesus incident in Acts 19.
We are not told that Paul was making a distinction between the baptisms of Christ and John when he asked if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed. A simple reading of the text suggests that Paul assumed he was speaking to Believers in Christ – we are merely told that they were disciples to whom Paul put the question about receiving the Holy Spirit. This could well imply that he was quite open to the possibility that one could be baptized (as a believer in Christ) without receiving the Holy Spirit.
His subsequent question as to the nature of their baptism may also be an expression of mild surprise – “Oh! So what were you baptized into, then?” This does not detract from the conclusion of the article that the gift of tongues was a dramatic sign of a transition but I am rather wary of reading into Paul’s question something that is not stated in the text.
I may comment later on the possible distinction between the ministry of the prophet (I Cor 12:29 – not all are prophets & 14:29 2 or 3 prophets to speak) versus 14:24 & 31 (everyone can prophesy) compared with a possible ministry of public speaking in tongues (14:27) versus speaking to oneself and God (14:28).
Other than these quibbles, I quite enjoyed the articles.
Frank, I would like to hear your thoughts on the post above from Steve M. In particular this part:
“I may comment later on the possible distinction between the ministry of the prophet (I Cor 12:29 – not all are prophets & 14:29 2 or 3 prophets to speak) versus 14:24 & 31 (everyone can prophesy) compared with a possible ministry of public speaking in tongues (14:27) versus speaking to oneself and God (14:28).”
I wondered the same thing in reference to your statement refuting the ‘two types of toungues.’ You mentioned there is no biblical basis for thinking that Paul could be distinguishing between a ‘gift’ of toungues and just speaking in toungues.
What are your thoughts in light of this gentleman’s comments about prophets (and I might add the same text’s references to evangelism).
I actually concur with your viewpoints about two types of tongues…but I find this gentleman’s statement objectively persuasive just based on that text.
That’s really outside the scope of this post. Maybe someday I’ll do a riff on prophecy. In the meantime, I’d suggest T. Austin-Sparks’ book Prophetic Ministry. https://www.frankviola.org/top100 – I do address some of these things in “Revise Us Again.”
Thank you Frank, this is so clear and enlightening! It is such a pity that we sometimes try to enforce our understanding onto the Word of God instead of searching for the truth as you did in these four cases. God bless you for sharing your insights in these four posts.
Herman of bibledifferences.net
I am totally taken on a reading journey that I so needed and desired with this writing. Looking forward to all of them. Would be a marvelous book too.
I will save and format, change to pdf, and then change it again from that to be easily read on my Kindle.
Thanks for this series, Frank. Just what I needed.
I’d wait on that. Typos are being corrected daily.
Thanks Frank, I’m curious to see in future posts why you may not think the baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from the baptism in Christ. It seems clear that Christ had a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit when the dove descended from when he was water baptized, and that the disciples had the spirit breathed into them before pentecost at the baptism of the spirit. That some believers received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before water baptism, some during, and some after. Can you explain the difference between the indwelling Spirit and the baptism of the Spirit? And the difference between the indwelling Christ, indwelling spirit, oneness with the father, and the spirit resting on us? All things very similar but so confusing!
As always, I love your work.
Grace,
Matt
We’ll get to some of this. But see my post in the Archives called “Rethinking Water Baptism.”
Hi Frank,
Thank you for your balanced and biblical overview of ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’ Growing up in the pentecostal church, I have seen many devisive ways that the dubious doctrine of the second act of grace with the evidence of speaking in tongues has been acted out. In fact, I was in one church where the pastor actually reviled believers who did not speak in tongues. That was the tipping point in my walk and shortly after that, my wife and I left that church due to the overall imbalance of that particular ministry.
Now, I understand that when a person accepts Christ, they receive the Holy Spirit, whether there is an immediate supernatural response or not. The gift of tongues may happen, or not. It simply depends on God’s grace for the individual. The Holy Spirit is much more than an outward manifestation, He changes us from the inside out and that change is the primary purpose of His indwelling.
Your balanced discussion will do much to lay aside the “have’s and have not’s” mentality that has infiltrated the body of Christ for too many years. My hope and prayer for balanced discussions like this is a unity in Christ that will be in and through the Holy Spirit; a unity just like the early church experienced.
Blessings to you for your boldness to tackle such a destructive, devisive subject.
Thank you so much for this comment. I have felt, when speaking with Pentacostal-believing friends, that I am perhaps less of a believer because I haven’t been given the gift of tongues. It encourages me to hear your reminder that “the gift of tongues may happen, or not. It simply depends on God’s grace for the individual.”
This series so far should be very enlightening to many. The doctrine of baptisms is probably one of the most missunderstood doctrines in the Word, so making a brief comment is very difficult. However, one key that may unlock this issue is that nowhere in the Bible does it declare the Holy Spirit as a Baptizer. Jesus is the Baptizer into the Body of Christ with the Holy Spirit. (See the words of John the Baptist.) The initial evidence of the new birth is described by Paul in Ro.8:16, which is an inner witness, not speaking in tongues.
Jesus described the work of the Holy Spirit in Jn,16:13-14. If the Holy Spirit was a baptizer, then He would have to draw men to Him and not Jesus.
God used a Pentecostal church to draw me back to Him during a very difficult time in my life. I’d never experienced people speaking in tongues before that. I felt much like Keith (the first commenter on post II) I ended up feeling pressured and found myself drawn into the “emotion” of it all, but something felt off. I prayed for understanding. I was a baby Christian and I was so confused.
Then one night, totally broken, and in prayer(alone), my prayers became a language I did not recognize. I have come to believe this was not me praying but the Spirit interceding on my behalf. I hope you will touch on Romans 8:26. This experience was completely different from what I was experiencing in the church. THIS was genuine and I knew it. A prayer begun in agony and despair ended in complete peace. I attribute this single experience as a turning point in my life and in my Christian walk because I knew from that moment that no matter what happened to me I was not alone.
I did not stay in the Pentecostal church and I’ve attended many denominations over the years. Currently we attend a small community church and fellowship with several different community groups. Often at group gatherings people speak in tongues and I am still uneasy with it.(1 Cor. 14:26-33) Usually because I sense a lack of authenticity in the air.
What I am discerning from personal study is that speaking in tongues is a tool of the Spirit for His intentions of accomplishment, not for personal satisfaction or status. I think this is what you are also saying in this series.
EA…thank you for sharing your experience. My experience is that many powerful moments I have had with GOD were very personal and private…and those moments have never been replicated again in my life…not to say that they could not be repeated…but those moments left me so impacted that they have stayed with me in a way that they need no repitition. I love the fact that GOD shows Himself to me in new fresh ways and takes me totally by surprise most of the time 🙂
Frank,
I greatly appreciate what you bring to the body of Christ and how you are fulfilling your purpose in Him. I have read most of your books and have been a subscriber of this blog post for a while, although I have never posted a comment before.
I just wanted to say that for such a hot topic of debate you’re not going to get any resistance here, because I completely agree with your assessment and conclusion on the subject.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, but always felt like God was calling me into a deeper understanding and relationship with Him, so that put me on a journey to find a body of believers who had what I was looking for. As a result, I have experienced fellowshiping with a wide range of believers and expressions of the faith. For years I desired to speak in tongues, and ran in pentecostal circles, but had a genuine desire for it to be authentic. I wasn’t about to try to manufacture something that wasn’t real. I was “coached” by others as you mentioned, but nothing ever happened. He has since given me this gift as a private prayer language, but it wasn’t through some big dramatic experience. It just came through real intimacy with my Abba Father in a heart of praise. The main issue I have with the Pentecostal approach is that they see tongues as the initial evidence, but in most of the instances where tongues were present in the early church, so were prophecies, signs, wonders, healings, and other miracles. I don’t know about you, but I want to see the full expression of the body of Christ on this earth, not just the one that easiest to replicate in public. Not that we should be seeking the experience, but as Jesus said in Mark 16, “These things will follow those who believe.”
Thanks again Frank for your faithfulness to the body,
May God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless you!
Evan
Thank you for this series, Frank. I had never made the connection between Act 2 and the Tower of Babel. Very interesting!
Countless connections like that are made in “Jesus: A Theography” https://www.frankviola.org/jesuschrist
I know when I was studying Greek in seminary that the word translated as tongues also had a translation of languages. Just out of curiosity… does the language have to be an unheard of language, or could it have meant that people were now able to speak other mainstream languages e.g. Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, etc. for the reason of evangelism to other people groups, or in today’s time English, German, French, Spanish, etc.?
There’s debate over this as it’s not quite clear. At Pentecost, it was human languages and dialects. Paul also speaks about the tongues of angels in 1 Cor. 13. So perhaps some have that language.
Frank,
Excellent post. Thank you for challenging us to do our homework and read scripture in context. I love how you teach from the vantage point of scripture in context. When you look at doctrines that dissagree with what was stated, it’s clear that it’s supported by the copy and paste and/or proof texting.
It is sooooooo good to see scripture taken as it is written, not twisted to fit a preconceived doctrinal position. I only wish that more people would read scripture to learn from it instead of reading it to bolster their existing ideas.
Wow…learning so much! That makes so much sense…and seems so obvious now LOL…I just love how God’s word never stops revealing…that’s what makes it so alive to me. Frank, thanks for being an open-minded vessel. The explanation you give of these 4 diverse groups being “endorsed” by God through the Holy Spirit exemplifies a beautiful bond of “unity.” God does not give a gift to divide the body. I also would like to mention that God has used very unique and powerful ways to show Himself to me that were empowering…but he often does not repeat those in my life over and over. Tongues should not be and “end” that is desperatey sought but appreciated as a “means” when it is truly bestowed. This coming from someone who has only had 1 experience with tongues in my teens and I’m not convinced it was authentic as the environment was heavily “peer encouraged” as I’ve mentioned in a previous post.
I had a very dramatic conversion in which I felt compelled to get on my knees and I heard Christ calling my name. I prayed in the Spirit and can’t even remember what I said. Unfortunately, it was in the privacy of my room. But God and I know what happened on that day and that I was filled with the Spirit and saved by Christ. So when I was told I had to be baptized to receive the Spirit I refused. I didn’t get baptized until much later – almost 2 years. Part of it was because I wanted to understand water baptism and what it meant. When I did get baptized nothing special happened. Why? Because I already received the Spirit.
Thanks so much for this series, Frank. It’s been very helpful!
Not coming from a place of disagreement, bur rather, inquiry…I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on the event in John 20:22 when Jesus breathes on his disciples and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” prior to the day of Pentecost. I’ve heard people make various claims about this instance to support their doctrines/beliefs, so it might be helpful to shed some light on it. Hopefully I didn’t miss this subject in the content or comments from reading previous posts. If so, I apologize…please redirect me there. 🙂
I believe I cover that somewhere in “From Eternity.” In future posts, you’ll see that a person can be “filled with the Spirit” many times.
Glad you mentioned that, as I was about to mention something similar.
I was brought up in an evangelical Anglican church, then into traditional Anglican, and am now in a charismatic Church of Scotland (presbyterian) church, with a decidedly Reformed edge to my theology….
One of the interesting things I discovered a number of years ago was a paper from the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly which allowed for expression of the gifts, but rejected the term “baptism of the Spirit” as being divisive/exclusive. For me, it also implies a one-off event, and thus I prefer the term ‘filled with the Spirit’. Additionally, this adds to the future-infinitive element that you hint of here – I was always taught that Paul’s exhortation was best translated as “be being filled”.
Really enjoyed this so far – looking forward to the rest 🙂
Thanks, Frank, you are handling the subject excellently. Are you familiar with the work of Professor Gordon Fee? He is from the Pentecostal tribe but handles the subject much as you have. I was saved in a Full Gospel church on Long Island 15 years ago where the Gifts were allowed manifestation but for the past 7 years have been in a Bible Fellowship that while we say we believe in the Gifts they aren’t on display. My ministry has taken me into both the Pentecostal/Charismatic and Conservative camps and I have concern with both. I appreciate your efforts to handle this subject well.
I’m familiar with Fee, but haven’t read all his work. Does he break with the classic Pentecostal doctrine that says that a person can be baptized in the Spirit and NOT speak in tongues? If so, he’s an atypical Pentecostal.
Yes, I would put Fee in the “atypical Pentecostal” camp.
Fee, in his excellent commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians handles this questions nicely when he says:
“Paul proceeds at last to offer specific correctives to the Corinthians’ apparently unbridled use of tongues in the assembly. He began his argument with them by setting forth the broader theological framework in which these specifics are to be understood. In chap. 12 he argued for diversity, tongues being only one among many manifestations of the Spirit, who gives gifts to each as he wills for “the common good”(vv. 7-11). In chap. 13, reflecting on the theme of “the common good,” he insisted that none of them, himself included, counts for anything, no matter how “spiritual” they are, if they do not likewise manifest love. Now he puts these together by insisting that in the gathered assembly the single goal of their spiritual zeal should be love (v. 1), which, as in 8:1, is expressed in the language of “building up” the church (vv.3-5, 12, 17, 26). This latter theme is developed in two ways: by insisting on intelligibility in the gathered assembly and by giving guidelines for order.”
Gordon D. Fee. “The First Epistle to the Corinthians,” 652.
That’s probably getting a little ahead of you since you’re still in the book of acts but Fee is after rock solid Biblical interpretation and does an excellent job of explaining how Paul saw the gifts.
Thx. I’m sticking to the baptism. I’ve addressed questions about tongues in the comments on Part II. Have no intentions on exegeting 1 Corinthians 12-14 in this series. I’ve talked about it some in “Revise Us Again.”
Fee does not believe in the BHS as a 2nd work of grace.
I WILL COMMENT MORE AT CONCLUSION, BUT JUST WANTED TO CONCUR WITH YOUR FINDINGS. I AM,LIKE YOU, OF A PENTECOSTAL BACKGROUND, AND I STILL BELIEVE IN THE EXPERIENCE…BUT ALSO LIKE YOU I HAVE SEEN MANY THINGS CONTRARY TO BIBLE TEACHINGS IN THIS GROUPING.
MY GRANDFATHER WAS OF THE “AZUSA STREET” VINTAGE, AND I WAS BROUGHT UP LOOK ALWAYS FOR THE “REVIVAL”…YET, GRANDFATHER WAS NOT AN INTELLIGENT MAN, AND DID NOT GO FOR ALL THE “BALONEY” ATTACHED TO THE GREAT MOVE OF GOD. I AM REALLY SICK OF MUCH OF WHAT I SEE IN “PENTECONST” TODAY…THE PREACHERS ARE MOSTLY HIRELINGS, AND PREACH FOR MONEY…AND HEALING IS THE “BIG TICKET”…WHETHER LOCAL OR ON TV. AND DO NOT GO FOR THE FAKE DEMONSTRATION OF THE SPIRIT…AND CERTAINLY DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE METHODS THE CHARISMATICS GOT INTO WITH THE MANIPULATION OF THE TONGUE AND MOUTH TO PRODUCE A “TONGUE.”
THE FOLLOWERS OF CHARLES PARHAM DID NOT GO FOR “OVER” DISPLAY OF EMOTIONS. ALSO, THE “FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT” WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TONGUES…MY GRANDFATHER PREACHED FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WITH GREAT POWER AND HEALING AND MIRACLES BEFORE HE EVER SPOKE IN THE TONGUES…THE SAME IS TRUE WITH WILLIAM SEYMOUR WHO TOOK THE REVIVAL TO LOS ANGELES.
THE HEALING MINISTRY OF THE 19th CENTURY WAS THAT OF ALEXANDER DOWEY…AND HE NEVER BELIEVED IN TONGUES.
Thx. for your comment. In the future, type in lowercase. All CAPS means you’re shouting.
Good, Frank.
Three weekends ago the small band of Believers I’m part of had a campout. On Sunday morning the teenage daughter of one family was baptized by her father in the lake next to which we camped. We recognized her baptism as obedience, as a desire to be united into the body of Christ, and as our commitment to her as a daughter in The Family. I can see that the act of laying on hands to receive the Holy Spirit would have been more of a visable confirmation of the yet invisible reality of her inclusion into the household of God.
Tom