I’m in the bizzare position of having come to a conclusion I am not 100% happy about.

[Note: I have come to firmer conclusions since, which have been written in the next post.]

The only framework that fits all the scriptures as far as I am concerned, is to view conversion as regeneration then immediate indwelling by the Spirit through faith in Jesus, then a subsequent filling/baptism of the Spirit (usually through the laying on of hands).

Unfortunately, I don’t see the Scriptures clearly teaching a double reception of the Spirit - the language to describe both the indwelling and the filling/baptism is so similar that if I didn’t have to balance out the examples in Acts and Heb 6:2 on one hand and Galatians 3, Romans 8 and 1 Cor 12:13 on the other, I would be inclined to say they are one and the same. In fact, in some way I cannot yet see, they may be.

Still, in all good conscience I cannot ignore either, and must unhappily take the above as my best explanation.

In practice, I would encourage the laying on of hands for the Baptism of the Spirit after water baptism, expecting to see some sign of the filling of the Spirit. For those who have not experienced anything they would identify as the Baptism in the Spirit, I would encourage them to seek the Lord about it, and ask to receive whatever he has for Christians, even going so far as going to another (pastor/elder/mature friend) and asking the other believer to lay hands on them.

Those who have not experience anything they would identify as the Baptism of the Spirit and who do not believe it to be valid, I would encourage them to simply seek the Lord. While I believe they are missing out on a great blessing, I do not see them as any less a person, and, in fact, it is likely that they are stronger in other areas because they have not had that experience (as seems to happen eg. the average Chinese Christian without a Bibles is much better at praying than the average Western Christian with many Bibles).

I do not see that there is a two tiered church today. I do believe, however, that it is possible for Christians to be uneducated about some of the blessings of the Holy Spirit. I do see Christians also uneducated about some of the blessings in Scripture. I don’t see that as higher or lower Christianity - it is an example in both (and many other) cases of incomplete Christianity - such as we all will experience in one degree or another until Jesus returns.

Understanding conversion as regeneration, indwelling and filling (to change the term on you) is useful in explaining a few things.

1) It explains how people in the Bible were filled with the Spirit, but not permanently indwelt - though God is not that limited that he cannot stay when he wants and leave when he wants, making His decision the sole determinant of whether he is indwelling or merely filling.

2) It explains how a false believer can be filled with the Spirit but not indwelt without outsiders being able to tell the difference eg. victory over sin, working miracles etc. - though the comment above applies to this also.

3) It explains how a believer can be told to be continually filled, but still be indwelt by the Spirit - though it is possible to see an “unfilled” believer having the Spirit as indwelling, but not overtly influencing unsubmitted parts of a person, and the “filled” believer as submitting to the indwelling Spirit to enable their filling.

There is also the possibility that the separate Spirit Baptism I described is the both the indwelling and the filling. That would indicate that there are many who are regenerate but have not received the Spirit (though God will have graciously filled some despite their lack of knowledge). That would also explain the powerlessness of many Christians today. But I have already explained why I do not think this is the case.

Well, I have less to say in this post than I thought. Next conclusion…for now.

Well, I must confess that I thought I would have more trouble with 1 Cor 12:13, but I think I have proved (to myself at least) that the baptism talked about there is not the Lukan Baptism in the Spirit. As John Piper said, Paul uses the words differently from Luke. I wasn’t sure I agreed with Piper until I did that little study. I’m now happy with that statement.

The next verses are ones Aaron has used a few times in the comments here and he also briefly mentioned verse 2 on his blog - Galatians 3:1-5.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

(I’ll leave the publishing reference there from now on).

Paul here is talking to the Galatian church who have turned back to relying on the Law of Moses for their salvation i.e. they believed they needed to obey the Law in order to be saved, even though they originally trusted in Christ. Paul asks how they received the Spirit - through obeying the Law or believing the gospel? The answer is believing the gospel, and Aaron talks at this point about how the Spirit is received when they were converted.

Now, this is not something that necessarily contradicts Spirit Baptism as separate from conversion. When applying the conclusions from the last two verses - ie, that the Spirit dwells in someone who becomes a Christian, and is also received subsequently for empowerment - nothing here explicitly contradicts this idea. A person is regenerated, indwelt by the Spirit and then baptised in the Spirit. Even verse 5 which talks about God giving his Spirit and working miracles can be seen as talking about the two different ways in which the Spirit works upon a person.

But this passage does give me difficulty. If the Spirit came to regenerate and indwell in one act, I would have less difficulty, but here Paul says the Galatians received the Spirit by believing - something that happens after regeneration, and therefore indicates two acts. This still fits with the above sequence of regeneration, indwelling and baptism, but while this is the best way I can see for all the passages to fit, it still seems a little forced. For example, verse 2 talks about receiving the Spirit and verse 5 about God giving the Spirit, both of which are ways Luke describes the Baptism in the Spirit in Acts. I also cannot see where the Bible explicitly talks about an indwelling that is clearly distinguished from the baptism (filling is also how it is referred to). For that I need to go on to my next post - but I want to say, I find it difficult to get a good “feel” about how I understand this passage in Galatians with regards to a separate Spirit Baptism.

It is here I admit difficulty.

I am convinced that the accounts in Acts combined with Heb 6:2 indicate a regeneration, water baptism and a real subsequent baptism in the Spirit through the laying on of hands (or sovereignly from God) as normative for a Christian. If Heb 6:2 did not exist, I would probably eventually side with the view that the Acts accounts were non-normative in their separation of regeneration and Spirit reception, but as it is Acts and Hebrews seem to indicate quite the opposite - regeneration and Spirit baptism are temporally separate.

The problem for me comes when trying to understand the rest of the NT in light of this. I want to look at three scriptures that present problems and look at possible solutions.

[I have not seriously looked at all that has been written about "confirmation" - the name given to the laying on of hands - in the historical church, so it is possible that that could help me. Right now, however, I will type where my thinking is at the moment.]

Romans 8
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

Four views I am aware of:
1) “The Spirit of God” refers to the Spirit given with the laying on of hands. “The Spirit of Christ” refers to the Spirit given when regenerated. Despite the fact that this doesn’t make any sense in this context, such a division is totally bizzare. I’ve heard it, but I definitely don’t agree with it.

2) The Spirit referred to here is the One Holy Spirit, but it is referring to the Spirit’s work of sanctification (received when regenerated) as opposed to the Spirit’s work of empowerment (received through the laying on of hands). It is true this is talking about sanctification, so this is a possible way of fitting this into Spirit Baptism as separate from regeneration. This is what I would like the answer to be, but I am not 100% sure that the Bible actually teaches such a strict separation between these works in a believer.

3) It is referring to the Spirit’s work of sanctification (received when regenerated) as opposed to the Spirit’s work of empowerment (manifested at the laying on of hands). If this were the case, I cannot see how Acts 8 could say that the Samaritans had not received the Spirit if all they were wanting for was a manifestation of the Spirit already in them. The fullness of the Spirit carries the same sort of idea, though it can refer to the idea in no. 2 above also.

4) The Spirit is the Holy Spirit received through the laying on of hands which if you do not receive, you do not belong to Christ. This is a difficult position to maintain in light of the accounts in Acts - the apostles, the 120, the Samaritans and the Ephesians are all described in terms that indicate they were Christians before they received the Holy Spirit. I would put Saul (Acts 9) in that category also.

The second option seems most preferable to me here.

1 Cor 12
13 “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (ESV)

(Aaron mentions this verse (and the next) on his blog and comments that some versions translate the phrase “in one Spirit” as “by one Spirit”. He prefers “in” and compares it to the verses in Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16 and John 1:33, and draws the conclusions from there).

The first thing to note is the two references to our relationship with the Spirit here. One, in one Spirit we were all baptised into one body, and two, all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Why the two references? Back in 1 Cor 10:1-4 Paul refers to being baptised into Moses in the cloud and the sea and ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink - the drink being from Jesus. The fact that one relates to Moses and the other to Christ clearly differentiates between the baptising and the drinking - they are not the same thing - and it seems that Paul is repeating the same ideas a couple of chapters on. In chapter 10 baptism was into Moses; the drink was from the rock/Christ. In chapter 12 the baptism was in one Spirit into one body - Christ’s; the drink was of one Spirit who is given by/from Christ - Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, 4:10, Acts 2:33 etc.

The same divide is evident in Acts 2:38

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

First there is baptism in/into the name of Jesus Christ (one body), and second the reception of the Holy Spirit (from Christ).

This is seen also in Acts 8 when the Samaritans had not yet received the Spirit, but had still been “baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus” (v16). Again, in Acts 10, after the Gentiles had the Holy Spirit poured out on them they were baptised “in the name of Jesus Christ”. Again in Acts 19:5-6 the Ephesians were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus and then received the Spirit.

So what do we have?

1 Cor 10:1-4 Indicates the Baptism and Receiving are not the same.
Baptism into Moses (cloud and sea)
Receiving from Christ (food and drink)

1 Cor 12:13
Baptism into Christ (in one Spirit)
Receiving from Christ (one Spirit)

Acts 2:38
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

Acts 8:15-16
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

Acts 10:47-8
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

Acts 19:5-6
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

It is true that the Acts accounts do not talk about the Spirit when mentioning people being (water) baptised into Christ, but comparisons so far reveal far more similarities to the symbolism of water baptism (and therefore the conversion it symbolises) than the baptism in the Spirit that is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. The continued analogy from 1 Cor 10 gives a reason why Paul would talk this way, and his desire to emphasise unity in the Spirit explains why he refers to “in one Spirit being baptised into one body”. Surely the emphasis on the Spirit by putting it first indicates this also.

Therefore, I understand the verse to be talking about conversion and Lukan (et al) Spirit Baptism, not Lukan Spirit Baptism and continual filling up (another possible interpretation but the totally different actions of baptism and filling up seem not to go together).

One last note: despite (or perhaps contributing to) the Corinthians confusion outlined in 1 Cor 1, Christ did not ever baptise anyone into his name (1 John 4:1-2). 1 Cor 12:13 doesn’t give the identity of the baptiser - I wonder if there is anything in that? Just a quick little-thought-through thought.

I have a feeling not everyone will like this example, but there is one instance of Spirit Baptism after water baptism that I have not yet mentioned - that of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 3
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Mark 1
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Luke 3
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

John 1
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”

For some reason many, even those sympathetic to Spirit Baptism separate from water baptism, do not like the use of Jesus’ baptism and reception of the Spirit as a model. For the life of me, I cannot see why. It is obvious that he needed no regeneration, but he was baptised (a fact used by many Baptists to support their arguments for baptism) and then received the Spirit - and something happened. As the author and perfecter of our faith, the One we are to emulate, his baptism and Spirit reception should be a model also for us.

Or am I missing something?

It is the classical Pentecostal view that Baptism in the Spirit is signified by speaking in tongues and prophesying, taking their understanding from Acts 2, 10 and 19. I have some sympathy with this view because there are no other Biblical descriptions of what happens when someone is baptised in the Spirit. To say that Acts 8 and Acts 9 do not include these things does not necessarily preclude the idea that they actually happened, and the argument that Paul in 1 Cor 12 clearly implies that not everyone speaks in tongues or prophesies may be talking about in a church service as opposed to the occassion of their Spirit Baptism.

Yet, ultimately I reject the view that a person will speak in tongues and prophecy when baptised in the Spirit. This is why:

1) When the Bible says that the 120, the Gentiles and the Ephesians spoke in tongues and prophesied (or praised God) there is no indication that everyone spoke in tongues and that everyone prophesied (unless I am missing something in the grammar of the original language.) It may well be that some did one and some did the other. As it is, it is not clear enough to make tongues and prophecy a necessary action of all involved, and the fact that some onlookers considered the 120 to be drunk, tongues and prophecy may not have been the only thing going on.

2) Peter’s quote from Joel does not mention speaking in tongues. Maybe a case could be made that prophecy is to be expected (the Spirit coming on people in the Bible very often results in some sort of speech), but dreams and visions are also mentioned by Joel, and none of them are reported at the times of Spirit Baptism. Surely a sign of Baptism in the Spirit like tongues would have been mentioned in Joel’s prophecy if it were to be a sign. And since dreams and visions were not mentioned in Acts 2, 10 and 19, even those things that are mentioned in Joel’s prophecy need not be seen as necessary signs.

3) Acts 9 describes something like scales falling off Saul’s eyes, but mentions nothing else. While I do not think it necessarily would be the case, I think it likely that if he spoke in tongues and prophesied at that time it would have been recorded too. I don’t believe this to be a strong argument, however.

4) The 1 Cor 12 verses where Paul indicates that not all speak in tongues or prophesy is, again, in my view not fullproof, but I do think Paul would probably include the occasion of Spirit Baptism.

5) Nothing in the epistles even hints at the idea that tongues and prophecy are necessary signs for receiving the Spirit. In fact, tongues are described in 1 Cor 14 as a sign for [leading to] unbelievers (see here for the best explanation of 1 Cor 14:20-25 I have read) not a sign of baptism in the Spirit.

6) On a personal level, I have known and met people who have not spoken in tongues or prophesied when baptised in the Holy Spirit, yet very definitely were. This isn’t the best evidence to go by, but still it is a factor.

For those reasons, I do not agree that Spirit Baptism must be accompanied by tongues and prophecy (though it may be), but I do think that the Acts accounts indicate there will be some indication at the time and after a person is baptised in the Spirit.

I have gone through the explicit examples in Acts of Spirit baptism separate from conversion, and explained why I don’t see that the significance of the accounts has any bearing on the question of Spirit baptism apart from conversion. In fact, in Acts 8 it just does not make sense if separate Spirit baptism and manifestations were not normal.

Still, when discussing this issue, the question comes up: What about the other accounts of conversion that do not include a description of a separate Spirit baptism? I’d like to answer that via Hebrews 6:1-2.

Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

These two verses describe elementary teachings about Christ. You will see that the six areas mentioned can be divided into three pairs:

1) repentance and faith
2) baptisms and laying on of hands
3) resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

In the church today it is easy to see how repentance and faith are elementary and how they go together; it is easy to see how resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are elementary and how they go together; it is easy to see how baptisms are elementary…but how does that go together with laying on of hands, and how is laying on of hands elementary?

Looking again at Acts, baptisms and laying on of hands are closely related. Water baptism is the commitment (among other things) and laying on of hands is how people are filled with the Holy Spirit.

Now in case people protest, I invite them to explain how else laying on of hands can be elementary. The practice is seen in the Bible when praying for healing, setting aside missionaries and ordaining elders, but none of these are elementary to Christianity. It only makes sense when seen in conjunction with baptism, and in Acts it is seen to be the means by which people are baptised in the Holy Spirit.

This may seem strange if someone is not used to this, but Paul confirms this by his question in Acts 19. After asking if the Ephesian disciples had received the Holy Spirit, he then goes straight to the question: “Then what baptism did you receive?” It is clear that Paul links receiving the Holy Spirit with water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ - it was normal. And the author of Hebrews indicates that it was an elementary teaching that everyone should know.

Let’s go back to the query about the conversion accounts in Acts where a separate Spirit baptism is not exclusively mentioned.

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Acts 16:14-15a One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized…
Acts 16:31-33 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

These are the only verses I’ve found in Acts that mention conversion and baptism, but it is not too much to understand that when baptism is mentioned, laying on of hands is assumed. After all, the teaching of the epistles (Heb 6:1-2) should inform the interpretation of bibilical narrative :). In fact, many of the accounts of conversion do not even mention baptism, and yet we can assume that baptism took place (see Acts 18:8 where the English seems to read that Crispus and his household weren’t baptised, but other Corinthians were!)

I’ve looked at Acts 2 and Acts 8. Without preamble let me go on to Acts 9.

3. Saul’s heavenly vision. This is one account I would agree is not normative! When did he become a Christian? Acts 26:19 has Paul saying he was not disobedient to the vision. I am guessing that during the vision he was regenerated. But then why, in the midst of Ananias explaining he was going to pray for Paul’s his sight to be restored did he include “and be filled with the Holy Spirit”? Another example of the Holy Spirit not being received at the moment of conversion. And why? Ananias was not a leader of the church as far as we know. What was the purpose of it, unless that it is actually something normal for a Christian to receive the Holy Spirit after he is converted. I would suggest that the more abnormal thing here is that Paul received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before he was baptised.

4. Acts 10 has Peter at Cornelius’ house. This is definitely a special case, not because of the tongues and prophesying, but because of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles. The special circumstances were that these people received the Holy Spirit in the same way the apostles and the 120 had in Acts 2 (see Acts 11:15). All other examples - even that of the great apostle Paul - showed the Holy Spirit coming via the laying on of hands - another fact that helped me come to my present decision as I will explain later. As seen in the last post, outward manifestations would not be the surprising part of the situation for Peter and his companions - even the text tells us the surprise was that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit at all!

5. Acts 19 has some Ephesian disciples lacking the Holy Spirit. Among the many suggestions as to the significance of this account is the one Aaron recounts: that the gospel had come full circle. Regardless of whether that is right, Spirit Baptism separate from conversion cannot be made to be the marker of it, nor can the evidence of tongues and prophesy. As to the first, Aaron doesn not agree there was a delay, but unless those Ephesians were born again when Paul lay his hands on them instead of when they believed (and why get baptised if you don’t believe?), I cannot see how he can maintain that position.

Instead, it seems most reasonable to understand this to be an account of some disciples made through the preaching of Apollos when he was knew only the baptism of John (Acts 18:24-25). The disciple’s situation fits with what Apollos preached (knowing about Jesus accurately but knowing only the baptism of John) and the mention of Apollos in 19:1 would seem to support this. Again, this was an unusual example, but it seems to have more to do with the results of inaccurate teaching by Apollos than the progress of the gospel.

That is the end of the explicit examples in Acts. I have more to say with regards to why I believe the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to be separate from conversion in the next post, but before finishing here, I want to affirm again that I agree that the mention of these accounts indicate their significance in the spread of the gospel “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) but I do not agree that their significance teaches that the description of baptism in the Spirit separate from conversion was non-normative.

After giving Aaron over at Maranatha a link to a John Piper sermon on Spirit Baptism, I had decided to write about the topic myself. Aaron beat me to it. This leaves me wondering…do I go ahead with what convinced me that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is separate from conversion, or answer Aaron’s post? I think I’ll do the former tie up any loose ends in another post.

I have already written why it is a problem for reformed folks to hold that Spirit Baptism occurs at conversion. The mere presence of biblical examples where people are converted without having received the Holy Spirit creates, at the very least, a problem for those who hold it cannot happen. Quite apart from that, I have always found the contention that all of the examples in Acts where Spirit Baptism and conversion are separate are highlighting “breakthrough points” of the gospel to be taking a good idea and extending it too far. Sure, the mere fact that they were mentioned indicates that they were important, but I don’t see how that relates to the issue of Spirit baptism unless someone is predisposed to see it that way. So, despite the many fine people (including Aaron) who take that view, I cannot agree. Let me go through the examples and show you why.

1. Acts 2 is the first example. The apostles recieved what they had been promised - the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5. Aaron seems to have accidentally missed this verse. See also, Acts 11:15-16). The identification of this experience as being baptised with the Holy Spirit sets up every other occurance to be similarly identified. Acts 2:38-39 indicates that this is a promise available to all. (Notice the word “gift” in verse 38 is also found in 8:20, 10:45, and 11:17, refering also to a separate experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit). So while there is no explicit reference to the three thousand and further converts in Jerusalem receiving the Holy Spirit separately from conversion, it would seem that they did. This is re-enforced when…

2. … in Acts 8 when the Samaritans believed, the fact that they had not received the Holy Spirit was cause for Peter and John to come and lay hands on them. Now think in terms of being there at the time. Do you think that the apostles would have said to each other:

“Golly, this is a new frontier - we didn’t think that Samaritans would believe in the Lord! Even though we have just baptised over five thousand people who we know received the Holy Spirit merely because they responded and believed and without benefit of any outward manifestations, we know these people, who have also responded and believed in the same way, have not recieved the Holy Spirit.”

Huh? That would make no sense, yet that is what we are asked to believe. Did the apostles also say:

“We know that there should be a difference between those we have just baptised and those in Samaria, because Samaria is a new frontier and whenever this gospel reaches a new frontier there needs to be outward manifestations. We need to send Peter and John up there to get those manifestations going so that everyone will know this is a new thing!”

I’m afraid I just can’t see it. I believe that the delay (ie. waiting for Peter and John as opposed to being filled just after baptism) was likely to keep the unity of the church and establish the authority of the apostles, but I don’t believe that this passage shows the reception of the Spirit separately from conversion is a special case and not normative. It just doesn’t make sense.

I hope I am not being seen as disrespectful, I am trying to point out that to me the reasoning presented just doesn’t fit and, to me, seems absurd.

This is getting long. I’ll continue in the next post.

The title of this post is admittedly provocative. It would be better to say that the theological argument many reformed believers use against the Baptism in the Holy Spirit contradicts another reformed belief - that of the need to be regenerate to believe.

In reformed thought, a person is totally unable to save themselves - they are unable to apprehend, let alone respond to, the gospel. In keeping with salvation being of God from beginning to end, reformed theology states that when a person becomes a genuine Christian, as they hear the gospel the Holy Spirit regenerates them (they are born again) and so the person responds in faith to the good news. (I agree with this, by the way).

When it comes to Baptism in the Holy Spirit, many reformed people identify the reception of the Holy Spirit with this regeneration, i.e. a person is baptised in the Spirit when they become Christians/are born again - it is one and the same thing.

Here is the contradiction:

John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

Acts 1:4-5 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

In the first verse Jesus is declaring the apostles clean because of the word spoken to them - saved. Then, after this he tells them to wait for the baptism with the Holy Spirit. So, which is it? Are the apostles not genuinely saved in John 15:3 because they must have Holy Spirit to believe and must wait until the Spirit comes in Acts 2, or are they saved in John 15:3 and then they receive the Spirit in Acts 2?

But it will be argued that this was a special case. That may be, but then how do you explain it theologically? It must be possible for a person to be regenerated through the Holy Spirit and not have received the Holy Spirit. And this is what we find in other examples in Acts.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here is another example of an apparent theological impossibility - the Samaritans believed, accepted the word of God, something that is impossible without being born again by the Spirit, and yet they had not received the Holy Spirit! How does this work unless it is possible to be born again without actually receiving the baptism of the Spirit?

Acts 19:1-2a While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

Acts 19:5-6 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

The common argument against this being an illustration of baptism in the Holy Spirit apart from salvation is to say verses 1-2 do not indicate the “disciples” were Christians, but rather that they were disciples of John the Baptist. I myself do not find the arguments for this to be very strong, but allowing that this were true there still remains the problem of the disciple’s response through baptism before the Spirit came on them. Theologically, no genuine response should have been possible without the Spirit unless it is possible for someone to believe and yet not have received the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the way Paul asks his question in verse 2 would indicate this is so.

One solution proffered has been that the baptism in the Spirit is a manifestation of the Spirit who has been actually received at conversion. This does not fit the language of the three examples above. The apostles, Samaritans and Ephesian men had not received the Spirit. The Bible does not say they had not manifested the Spirit.

Another solution is the idea that Christians receive the Holy Spirit at conversion, and after receive the fullness of the Spirit. This could be taken more than one way, but I’m not happy with that language. It also doesn’t really fit the wording of the Scriptures - all three groups had not received the Spirit, not the fullness of the Spirit.

Unfortunately when discussing this issue those who do not believe in a separate Spirit baptism get nervous and have asked, “Are you saying we are second tier Christians? Are you saying we aren’t as good as you?” Before we go on I want to assure everyone - that is not what I am saying. In fact, I believe that there are many who do not believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as separate from conversion who have, regardless, been filled with the Spirit. But I am saying that I think reformed believers who argue Spirit Baptism occurs at conversion are in a quandry.

The news that London has been victim to 4 terrorist bombs is horrible. My condolences to all those affected. I first heard about it while reading Adrian Warnock’s blog, himself from England.

I found it interesting that in one of his posts on the attack, he and others from England share a more measured response to the situation which they put down to their long history of dealing with terrorism. America, however, have not had such experience to fall back on, and the 9/11 attack elicited - understandably - greater shock.

I agree with John Howard that Australia also is a target. Australia has been and continues to be a great supporter of the US in the fight against terrorism and this has not gone unnoticed. One wonders how Australians will cope when terrorist attacks begin on their own soil. I have faith in them. They are a sturdy bunch (as I can testify living among them).

Taking the previous three posts into consideration, I would state that no action, feeling or desire is, in and of themselves, evil. Yet all of these things are often considered so. This, I believe, is a big mistake.

It used to be in some Christian communities that to dance was a sin. Or playing cards. Or (as is still the case in some) drinking alcohol. While there were usually good reasons to begin these prohibitions, usually to do with what they were associated with, they were made universal and binding on all - the action was confused with the associated sin. This has caused a good deal of heartache and legalism.

Feelings, also, have a sad history of being defamed by the church. The belief that anger was sin led (and still leads) many people to deny their own anger and suffer incredibly. The same with hate and sadness and a myriad of other emotions. In fact, sometimes Christians can be the most repressed people you will meet because they are not allowed to feel what they actually do feel. Personally, I’m not sure that I can even think of a context where a feeling is sinful. Is there a Biblical example?

Desires likewise are ill-treated. When faced with a desire that is wrong, Christians are taught or assume that the answer is to stomp on it. Yet all wrong desires arise out of a right desire. Fulfill that right desire and the wrong desire will lose it’s power. Even more, however, many of the so-called wrong desires are only wrong in the way someone wants to fulfill it, rather than wrong in itself. But again, the church often teaches implicitly and explicitly that the way to thwart evil desires is to ignore them.

I will try to return to this later.

You may have noticed a pattern by now :). This question, however, has a bit more to it. The Bible talks about evil desires, but when looking to the root of those desires, is there anything - divorced from person and circumstance - that in and of itself is evil?

To return to killing, for instance (ok, I’m reading Agatha Christie novels at the moment - I admit it!). If someone desires to kill another, in normal circumstances the desire would be considered evil. But why do people have that desire? One example could be to get rid of a hated object. Yet, the same process could be applied to sin or anything harmful. We righteously hate some sin, and desire to be rid of it by taking extreme measures. This is not necessarily wrong.

This can be applied to any desire. In fact, as I wrote here I believe the basic desire that underlies all others is the desire for love which is in itself not evil, but right.

So, I want to posit that desires are evil only when applying context.

The next post will explain what on earth I am going on about :).

My question is the same as the last post: Are there any feelings that, divorced from person and circumstance, is in and of itself evil?

Hate? We are to hate sin.

Jealousy? Husbands and wives are rightly jealous if their spouse goes off with someone else.

Anger? We are not sinning if we are angry against sin. In fact, are we sinning if we are angry about anything?

What think ye?

Question: Is there any action - divorced from a particular context and particular people - that is either good or bad?

Not sure what I mean?

Take for example Killing (which seems to be the first thing that springs to people’s minds). It is sinful if you kill your neighbour, but it was not sinful if you lived under the Mosaic Law as a punishment for some sins. Many people would argue it is not sinful in battle. The act of killing, therefore, is not automatically sinful. But is there some act that is?

Speaking untruth. You can either tell an untruth and deceive someone, or say something that is not true while telling a fictional story.

Taking something that isn’t yours. This could be the action of a thief, or the act of confiscation of a judicial system as punishment.

Is there any action that is in and of itself evil?

Just because he is.

Wifey (in a vain attempt to protect my wife’s privacy, I’m not using her name ) and I bought a new Honda Today yesterday. What a cool little thing. It’s a one seater, goes a maximum of 55 km/h and is incredibly economical. Now we are a 1.5 car family. Makes me want a motorbike.

For quite some time was immersed in a discussion board made up mainly of Christian gender egalitarians. As a complementarian - someone who believes God has ordained some differences in function - it was interesting, frustrating, annoying, enlightening and more.

Just today I came across an answer I composed to a statement made by one of the egalitarian participants. The person stated that should complementarianism were true, then God would be breaking his own “rule about male leadership” if a woman were ever to be found leading (eg. Deborah in Judges 4).

I answered with this example:

Suppose that a Woman’s Health Clinic had decided that they would only employ female doctors, but when they advertised the position, only a male applied. They rejected him, but then after months of searching and the need for a doctor increased, they finally decided that a male doctor was better than none.

Did they break their own rule? Was it a rule in the first place? Extenuating circumstances led them to that decision - it was not the way they wanted to staff their clinic long term. The male doctor understood and was temporarily hired on the proviso that when a suitable female doctor was found, she would be given his job.

Then suppose a female applied for the job, but she was not up to speed. Would the clinic be betraying their principles if they allowed the male doctor to train that woman up to take his place?

Not in my opinion and I think the same applies in the church and in ancient Israel. Does God break his own rule if a woman is used and blessed in leadership (eg. Deborah)? Is male headship a “rule” in the first place? The situation may arise where a female teaching and having authority over men in the church arises, but that is not God’s vision for the long term situation.