HOW TO DEFEND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
by
James Joseph Doyle IV
SMASHWORDS EDITION
*****
PUBLISHED BY:
James Joseph Doyle IV on Smashwords
How To Defend The Baptism In The Holy Spirit
Copyright © James Joseph Doyle IV, 2010.
Copyright © James Joseph Doyle IV, 2010. Smashwords Edition. The right of James Joseph Doyle IV to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
*****
This work is firstly dedicated to my loving wife, Sharon, who has supported me through thick and thin (being an example of a true Proverbs 31:10-31 woman) and secondarily to the memory of my friend, the late Rev. Ward Ballard, who was closer than a brother and who, as my fellow scholar, inspired me to ever dig deeply into the treasure of the Word of God.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Ted Kitto, David L. Mohn and to my son Joshua Doyle who lovingly labored over this manuscript, correcting the grammar and challenging much of the thought that went into it.
Cover Art by Jessie-Leigh Doyle.
Technical direction by Bethany Doyle.
*****
HOW TO DEFEND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
*****
Introduction
This work mainly is the response of a Pentecostal Christian to much debate and discussion with Christians from Evangelical and Fundamentalist backgrounds. Many times, I have heard that, these beloved brethren had to walk away from debate with other Pentecostals knowing that at least they had stuck to their task throughout the debate by quoting scripture in their defence of their anti-Pentecostal stand. Too often, to their dismay, they had entered debate with Pentecostals whose only rationale for this blessed experience was the evidence of the experience itself. These Pentecostal brethren, on most occasions, had not even attempted to justify their experience by faith in the Bible at all.
Even more frustrating is this fact! How many times have we encountered people claiming to have received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and yet have not tested the experience by the Word of God? Isn't it about time that we, as Pentecostals, put an end to the ridiculous instruction of saying to a Christian who is seeking the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, "Repeat after me now will you? BAA...BAA...BAA...GAA...GAA...GAA...There you've got it! You've been baptised in the Holy Spirit! Praise the Lord!" As one minister friend of mine once put it "If God could throw up He would! This kind of behaviour is an insult to the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit.”
This work is also a response to the Fundamentalist assertions that the Pentecostal is either demon possessed because of the practice of speaking in tongues or, if not possessed then, under a strong satanic delusion. As a result of this situation my style of debate will come across as provocative throughout this book but this effectively will be:
1. Nothing compared to the ultimate insult of working for Satan; and
2. From a motive to push the pendulum as far back in the opposite direction so that there will finally be a Biblical balance on this subject.
So, be warned!
I suppose that another aim of this work is to educate other Pentecostals as to the dire need to be armed with the Word of God so as to give a good account to those brethren of ours who have not received this promise. It is perhaps an appalling indictment on Pentecostalism that not many seem to put an emphasis on "studying to show themselves approved unto God" (2 Tim.3:15). In fact the trend in recent years, in some circles, has been to reject the necessity for Bible study which, in turn, has extended to a lack of emphasis in the need for in-depth ministerial Bible Training. Why train leaders to any in-depth degree when there will be few who will ever put their Bible knowledge to any real test? "After all doesn't the letter kill?" is a scripture that is commonly misquoted in Pentecostal circles as an excuse for not knowing or studying the Word of God. In its correct context "the letter" does kill but one thing is equally as certain and that is "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos.4:6).
This is where I fear that we have let the enemy gain an advantage. We are admonished not to be ignorant of his devices lest the enemy get an advantage over us (2 Cor.2:11). So how is it then that we, who supposedly have the fullness of the Spirit of God, encounter the enemy not with the Word of God as our Blessed Saviour did but with our newfound authority devoid of the Word of God? Perhaps this work will go part of the way in correcting this Pentecostal emphasis and redirecting it back to the middle of the road. And perhaps, as well, there may be a few anti-Pentecostals who will be challenged to dig deeper into that blessed Word and appropriate by faith "the promise of the Father" (Acts 1:4).
*****
Defining The Terms
DEFINING THE TERMS OF THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
* The baptism in the Holy Spirit is a state of being fully submerged in God the Holy Spirit by the Lord Jesus Christ after receiving salvation.
* It is that extra-ordinary manifestation of the power of the Spirit of God as He falls upon individuals who are open to the miracle working purposes of God.
* The initial evidence of having received this baptism is the manifestation of the miracle of speaking in tongues.
* These tongues may be in the languages of men or angels.
* The utterance of prophecy is another miracle that can follow tongues as an evidence of having received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
* The terms, "the promise of the Father", "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and "receiving power from on high" are all synonymous with "the baptism in the Holy Spirit".
* The baptism in the Holy Spirit is inclusive of all the extra-ordinary manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit as He comes upon people He chooses to as suitable to operate these gifts.
*****
Chapter 1
Receiving The Holy Spirit
WHY DO WE BELIEVE IN THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? A good question, perhaps, and the multitude of answers one gets to that question vary from being fanciful, in a "cloud cuckoo land" sort of way, to being ludicrous in a "what's this person been sniffing" sort of way. Very few Pentecostals will reply with a confident reliance on Holy Scripture. Why is this so? And why is it that we, as Pentecostals, can respond so successfully to the call of Jesus to "go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them (the lost) to come in, that my house may be filled" (Lk.14:23) and yet so patently miss it when it comes to knowing the will of God regarding His Word?
To answer this I believe that we need a starting point and by far the best starting point that I know of in Holy Scripture is 2 Tim 3:15-17 :
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".
I like that! It teaches me that faith is integrally linked to the Word of God. If we want to understand anything of what God has done in us and desires to do to others we need to be made wise through the Holy Scriptures. It also teaches me that all of the Holy Bible is profitable for me. The reason that I make this point is that I have heard some Fundamentalist Christians respond to Pentecostal believers, who appeal to scriptures in the Acts of the Apostles, by maintaining that one cannot properly teach doctrine from this book, which mainly deals with historical narrative. These Fundamentalists maintain that since Acts of the Apostles is not a book primarily written for doctrinal purposes we should not put an emphasis on it to substantiate our position as Pentecostals. I oppose such a view on the basis of the above scripture. All of it is given by God and is profitable for doctrine...that's good enough for me. And if there is a pattern of outpoured blessings for the people of God in any book of the Holy Bible then I'll go for it, regardless of whether it is in Acts, Ruth, Hosea or Habakkuk; for I desire to be built up on the whole Word of God!
Having established that we shall only use the Holy Scripture in our defence of what we believe and practice let us move quickly onto another issue that appears not only to divide Pentecostals from non-tongues speaking Christians but also divides one Pentecostal group from another and that is the issue of whether the Baptism in the Holy Spirit saves the soul or not. Some maintain that it is an experience that follows salvation and adds to it, others maintain that one cannot be saved without it and still others maintain that it is not linked to the salvation experience at all but has an entirely different purpose.
Rather than go off the track and get bogged down in an exhaustive treatise on salvation let us set some simple ground rules regarding salvation. Follow me with these simple lines of thought.
* Salvation requires repentance: a turning of one's direction wholly towards the Lord Jesus Christ.
* Salvation requires belief: in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, having secured for us eternal redemption through His death on Calvary's cross.
* Salvation requires confession: in Jesus as Lord.
* Salvation requires fruit: growth in the grace and knowledge of God.
If you can agree with these simple ground rules then it will be relatively easy to sort out the problem of the purpose of Pentecost and its relation to our salvation because the collegial players in the birth of the Church are also our main examples of our salvation and our receiving of the "promise of the Father". Up until now there has been a tendency to equate the receiving of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, with the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of regeneration and renewing for salvation (see Titus.3:5). To my way of thinking these are two separate events designed for two separate purposes.
Let me elaborate: If the apostles received the Holy Spirit only on the day of Pentecost then it would be safe to assume that salvation was linked with speaking in tongues. It would also be safe to assume that they could not have possibly been saved prior to this event (having not the inward regeneration and renewing of the Spirit of God: Titus.3:5). But what would happen if the Holy Scripture said that the apostles actually received the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost and in an entirely different way? Would it make you think? Would it make you reassess your stand on this issue?
Let us quote a few scriptures from the Gospel of John Chapter 20. Let us set the scene for you. It is the day that Christ rose from the dead; so it is already well and truly prior to Pentecost. He has already appeared unto Mary Magdalene (vs.14-18) but the disciples did not believe her (Mk.16:11). He also has appeared unto the other women (Mt.28:9-10) and also to the two disciples on the Emmaus Road but neither were they believed (Mk.16:12-13). And now it is evening and the disciples are gathered together "for fear of the Jews"(v.19) and behold Jesus comes and stands in the midst of them. It is at this point that belief overcomes their fear and they are glad when they hear His blessing of "Peace be unto you" and see His hands and His side.
So would you agree with me that the disciples have turned away from their fear to the Lord at this point and are convinced that He is risen from the dead? Now although there is no direct confession of Jesus as Lord there is certainly convincing evidence that they had received the Holy Spirit for verse 22 says: "And having said this, He breathed on them and says to them, Receive at once the Holy Spirit" (Wuests Translation). Would any argue that they did not receive the Holy Spirit at that time? If so then you would be making light of Jesus intent in His actions.
The following verses confirm this receiving of the Holy Spirit by indicating a deep knowledge of the mind of God to confirm on those who have been forgiven by the Lord the complete assurance of salvation. (1 Cor.2:10-16 is a parallel scripture on knowing the things of God). So in John 20 we have rock solid evidence of the disciples being saved without the need for Pentecost, tongues or divine healing. To argue otherwise would be to create a precedent in scripture by avowing that some may receive the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus and still not be saved. The only possible conflicting parallel reading comes from Luke 24:41 in the words "And while they did not believe it because of joy and amazement..."(N.I.V) and I think that you will agree with me when I say that I doubt if this constitutes unbelief in the natural sense as it is used generally in scripture.
If the disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit at that point then the words of Jesus are symbolic to the point of being entirely ambiguous and if they did receive the Holy Spirit at that point then many have to rethink the purpose of Pentecost. The reason for this is that it is evident that the Holy Scriptures teach that the disciples received the Holy Spirit twice. They received the Holy Spirit firstly on the evening of the resurrection and secondly on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).
My question to you, dear reader, is "how many times have you received the Holy Spirit?" Should you wish to argue the point with me on this assertion I would remind you that it would be very difficult to assert that they (the disciples) did not receive the Holy Spirit in direct consequence of Jesus having breathed on them. The act in itself being a divine testimony to a work of God; this is not entirely unlike that same work which God did in Adam in Genesis 2:7. This time, however, it was not to initiate life but to renew spiritual life with God. And is it not fitting that the forerunners for the Christian life receive this new life on the day that Jesus conquered the grave?
An interesting addition to this small insight into when the disciples received their salvation is the theological dilemma that Thomas must have faced. Please note now; we are still working from the Gospel of John Chapter 20. As you are aware from your reading Thomas was not present when the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room. Nor did he believe their collective account when informed about the events later on. His response in verse 25 says it all: ÒExcept I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe". When Jesus reappears "after eight days" (v.26) Thomas comes before the risen Saviour and confesses to Him, "My Lord and my God". Dear reader, does not scripture teach us "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"? (Rom.10:9-10). Did not Thomas meet these requirements? No doubt he did! Was he not therefore saved at this point? If he wasn't it then creates more problems than it solves. How could it be possible that he met these scriptural requirements (Rom.10) for salvation and yet not receive the "regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost"? (Titus.3:5). This point alone now puts both Thomas and the other disciples at odds with those who put salvation, the giving of the Holy Spirit, the birth of the Church and the manifestation of spiritual gifts all under the broad banner of Pentecost and trace everything back to that day. To my way of thinking they do not all fit into that one day. It is evident also that since the Holy Spirit was given twice to the disciples then God had a different purpose in each.
I do not accept for a moment the idea that the John 20 events were only meant to be partial impartations of the Holy Spirit. To get this from scripture is to read from the silence of the word (a very unsafe practice). The Holy Scriptures never mention anything about a partial impartation and therefore we have no right to read this meaning into the text. All that we have to work with is the text itself, comparing scripture with scripture, "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim.3:15).
If we are still working together along this line of thought then the conclusion is obvious that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not linked with the salvation experience of all the disciples. This being the case we cannot depart from the example of these first Christians by equating the impartation of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of regenerating and sealing us as God's property with the impartation of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of being empowered to be witnesses of Jesus Christ throughout the whole earth.
Those, then, who are adamant that a Christian must speak in tongues to be truly saved are standing on shaky theological ground and it is not me whom they are at odds with! It's Thomas and the others who set the example that we must follow.
Assuming that most of my dear readers are already acquainted with the first scriptural impartation of the Holy Spirit having been saved through His work and thereby been baptised into Jesus Christ (this being the "one baptism" of eternal significance since it is linked with our salvation) let us therefore move on to the second scriptural impartation of the Holy Spirit: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Please note that this is not that baptism into Jesus Christ (Rom.6:3). Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus Christ! Yet when this subject is discussed it is amazing how the two get mixed up. Quite obviously the baptism into Jesus Christ cannot be the same as the baptism in the Holy Spirit. So, from this point onwards you will appreciate it if I refer to the baptism in the Holy Spirit as pertaining to the baptism in the Holy Spirit!
Jesus referred to this blessed event as "the promise of My Father" (Lk.24:49) and "the promise of the Father" (Acts 1:5). Wuests translation of Lk.24:49 says, "As for Myself, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you" and the reading in Acts 1:4 says "And being assembled together with them He charged them not to go away from Jerusalem, but to be waiting for the promise of the Father which you heard from me". Please notice that Jesus is talking to them (post resurrection) about a future event. Please also notice that He refers to this event as "the promise" and that, in the same context from the book of Acts, this promise is equated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This association is undeniable. Compare with verses 5 and 8 of Acts 1.
Now in every baptism there are certain distinct parties involved. Firstly there is the baptisee (the one who will be immersed) and secondly there is the baptiser (the one who will perform the immersing) and thirdly there is the medium into which the baptisee will be immersed. In the case of those who get baptised in water the one getting immersed is the baptisee, the one performing the ceremony is the baptiser and the medium is the water. In the case of our being baptised into Jesus Christ we are the baptisees, the Holy Spirit is the baptiser (1 Cor.12:13) and Jesus Christ is the medium into which we are immersed. But with our being baptised in the Holy Spirit things change slightly. We remain the baptisees, Jesus Christ becomes the baptiser and it is into the medium of the Holy Spirit that we are immersed. Mark 1:8 says (when speaking of Christ) "He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost". Literally this should always be rendered as being a baptism in the Holy Spirit. But none-the-less the meaning is clear.
So why, then, is there so much confusion around this issue? I suppose that the answer lies in the fact that many slip up with their semantics and cloud the issue by referring to the baptism in the Holy Spirit as the baptism of/by/with the Holy Spirit. And the meaning changes, you will agree, when one uses different words. To illustrate: if one were to substitute the word "with" for the word "in" in John 3:23 the meaning would be obscure. So why so much fuss over one little Greek preposition "en"? The answer to this lies somewhere in the past when men changed the directive to baptise (literally to fully immerse) into the watered down version (pardon the pun) to sprinkle thereby allowing one not necessarily to be in the water. I do not agree with this sprinkling practise but many churches do this anyway by allowing infants to be baptised with water. Since the majority of translations took a back seat on this issue and allowed "en" to be directly translated as "with" most think that they are being obedient by submitting to sprinkling. For this present issue the influence of such changes have overflowed into the baptism in the Holy Spirit debate. The Fundamentalist certainly has been baptised by the Holy Spirit and would vehemently argue his case for having received a baptism of the Holy Spirit and, what is more, I would wholly support such an argument. In his mind-set he would understand these terms as applying to what the Holy Spirit wrought in him at the time of his conversion, i.e. having been baptised into the body of Jesus Christ (Rom.6:3-4,1 Cor.12:13) but does he understand that the scripture talks of a second baptism? In most cases, that I have encountered, there is no such understanding. We, as Pentecostals, are guilty of not making the debate on the basis for the need of a second baptism by the second member of the Holy Trinity. And this is perhaps the legacy we carry for having, historically, a brittle hermeneutic as a foundation for an underdeveloped systematic theology.
To conclude this chapter, as is obvious, the linchpin for my argument is based almost entirely on the issue of when Peter and the other disciples were saved. It is apparent that had they been saved prior to Pentecost as such then they must needs have received the Holy Spirit twice. This being the case, as is apparent from Holy Scripture, we need to get a hold on a few issues. Firstly, that all Christians have the Holy Spirit. Secondly, it is not essential to speak in tongues to be saved. And thirdly, if God's intent is for us to have a second baptism conducted by the second member of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, then it is necessary for us to respond to His will in faith as it is revealed to us through His Word. This shall be my intent throughout the remainder of this work; i.e. to study the Holy Scripture with you and allow it to speak to you of God's will for you concerning this subject.
*****
Chapter 2
"But Jesus Said That I Could"
I suppose one of the things that really nagged me as a young Christian was why was there so much debate over the issue of speaking in tongues. I was blessed of God to have been redeemed from a very sinful life at the ripe old age of 23. I was nurtured with a lot of love in a very sound Foursquare Gospel Church. And with all this love going on around me it came as quite a shock to me, as a young Christian, that not all believers in Jesus Christ were exactly overjoyed about us Pentecostals being on board the same ship. The main issue turned out to be "tongues". Before I was subject to such accusations as being "demon possessed" and being "an agent of the Devil" I was blessed to have owned my own Holy Bible. Having read it already before I was saved it was amazing just what came back to mind after I received the Comforter, who was to teach me as His word said He would (1 Jn.2:27).
To my way of thinking if Jesus told me that I must take up my cross daily and follow Him (Lk.9:23) then that was easy to understand. It was simply a matter of applying the same faith that I had placed in Him to forgive me of all my sins and the matter was solved. I experienced perfect peace in resting in the complete work of Jesus Christ. I had not a worry in the world. “Go and tell others about Him?” Sure! No problems! This salvation created more joy in me than all the world's riches ever could. I told everybody about Him and what He had done for me. I was so gung-ho that nothing was a problem because faith in Him was so natural. “Lay hands on the sick?” Why not? ; the Word said it! Cast out demons? Just let me find one! And God did and by faith I did. So, to me, speaking in tongues was just another response of faith in His Word which said "He that believeth .... shall speak with new tongues" (Mk.16:16-17).
But one thing perplexed me greatly. Why was there so much opposition to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues)? Pentecostals certainly didn't lack anything in their enthusiasm to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their love and commitment to Jesus Christ and the saints of God was undeniable. So why was there so much vehemence between Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals? From where did this "doctrine of demons" thinking stem? Didn't they know that Jesus said that it was a sign (Greek: semeion; lit. a miracle) that would follow them that believe? As Ward Ballard put it "they believe that the Bible does not allow them to speak in tongues. We do. But we have no right to hold onto our belief unless we first understand their biblical perspective and then examine both thoroughly in the light of scripture".
What ensued was a whole flurry of visits to bookshops of Fundamentalist persuasion to purchase literature that attacked Pentecostal doctrine. It was during these visits to these shops that I gained a lot of exposure to literature on the word of God that blessed me greatly and imparted spiritual truths that I would not have been exposed to otherwise.
In reading these books attacking Pentecostal doctrine I learnt that many believe that the day of miracles and revelation is over. They believe that the day of apostolic and prophetic gifting is also over. They believe that with the closing of the New Testament Canon after the last writing of the apostle John there was no longer any need for revelation either by prophecy or by a tongue with the interpretation. Hence, on the basis of scripture, they maintain that basically since the close of the first century AD the spiritual gifts that are evident in Pentecostal Assemblies are not functioning under the hand of the Holy Spirit. And since it is not the hand of God in it then it must all be a subtle, satanic counterfeit.
Attached to these attacks on the Pentecostal doctrine were a reasonable assortment of testimonies from people who had suffered rather unfairly under the hands of a) unscrupulous Pentecostal ministers; b) insensitive "spirit filled" people who were more preoccupied with their own gifting than the needs of those they were "ministering" to; and c) doctrines that put more of an emphasis on avoiding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (which could have been anything from questioning the ethics of the minister to speaking out against the anathema of Christian Rock Music). As well there were also testimonies from ministers who had come out from the Pentecostal movement either because they were fed up with some of the excesses or because they were more aligned theologically with movements that were distinctly non-Pentecostal.
Of the above I shall comment briefly. It is obvious that in any group there shall be characters whose behaviour will not measure up to the standards which that group espouses. For example: one scandal I learnt of involved the pianist of a very influential Fundamentalist assembly. Certainly the pianist had a ministry that involved leading the saints of that assembly into worship of the Lord. Even more certain is the fall of such a high profile member of a ministry team causing hurt in the lives of people sitting under this ministry. The seeds of sin had been planted much earlier and its practice had been hidden for quite a while. Now is this assembly to be judged on the basis of this one person's behaviour? Do we discredit a movement on the basis of the behaviour of one or a few as if they somehow reflect the whole of what that movement stands for? You cannot answer that question with a view that some behaviours we will frown upon and others we will react in such a way as to heat up the tar and get the feathers ready. In other words the way some of these testimonies are written you would get the idea that Pentecostalism is wrong because some theologically and spiritually immature people have inflicted themselves on some hurting and very susceptible people. Add to this the idea that Pentecostalism is wrong because some very greedy and ravenous wolves have made prey of they flock of God. What is this? Is it open season on Pentecostalism? Do we as Pentecostals have an entire corner on the market of unscrupulous behaviour? Or are there one or two of you non-Pentecostals out there who may have been insensitive or unscrupulous? I speak as a fool of course.
No church or movement should be judged on the basis of the unhealthy behaviour of isolated individuals proclaiming to represent it. If this were to be the case and each church movement were to be judged on this basis then there would be nowhere for dedicated believers to fellowship. Dear Fundamentalist brother or sister, would you judge Fundamentalism on the basis of some of the mistakes that have gone through your ranks? Doubtless you would not. You see, the line has to be drawn somewhere and it can only be done on the basis of the Word of God. Is Pentecostalism wrong, therefore, because of human error or unscrupulous behaviour? No more than Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism or any other "ism" is for that matter.
At one very non-Pentecostal conference I attended once, virtually all that these ministers would do in the session breaks was swap stories of how the local Pentecostals did this and did that. (They did not know that a couple of us Pentecostals had attended their conference with a view to learning more about the Word of God). They must have been feeling very smug and very well protected in that setting, for one little morsel of spicy anti-Pentecostal trivia seemed to invite another. "On the last day of the feast" we lifted up our voices to a few of them and let them know just how unloving and judgmental they had been! We asked why is it that they were not fair about their story telling? Would they like us to tell a few stories about some of the bizarre things that are perpetrated in the name of Christianity outside of Pentecost? If not then we would reluctantly supply them with a few. The table was amazingly quiet after that! I wonder why?
You see, dear reader, the question as to the validity of Pentecostalism lies not in the behaviour of those who espouse it but in the very Word of God itself. Is salvation scriptural? Then receive it, regardless of all the Jim Joneses in the world who bring Christianity into disrepute. Is the baptism in the Holy Spirit (for today) scriptural? If you find that it is, through the reading of this book, then receive it regardless of all who, through their behaviour or through what they have experienced, have turned from it.
So then, do we have any scriptural basis upon which we can defend our rights to be Pentecostal? Yes, much in every way. I would like therefore to go through the Holy Scriptures examining each verse in its context that deals with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Each reason for believing, I hope, will shed some light on why we do not believe that this wonderful promise finished around the close of the first century with the completion of the New Testament Canon.
As stated earlier it should require the believer to look no further than the words of Jesus in Mark 16:15-18:
"And he said unto them, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
One of the many accusations that are levelled at Pentecostals is that we focus too much on tongues, casting out of demons and laying hands on the sick but not enough on picking up serpents and drinking lethal potions. It is alleged that if one of these signs is to follow our believing then all should. Let me say in the defence against this argument that the word for "signs" should literally be translated "miracles" and, as such, stem from the Lord Himself. Given that deadly poison is to be offered to us I would think that it firstly should be in the context of being a witness for the preaching of the Gospel (v.15) and secondarily it should come as a revelation from God that the substance is poison (should it be administered in a surreptitious manner). Further to this argument that Pentecostals should involved themselves in drinking lethal potions and handlings serpents is the fact that of the numerous incidents recounted in the New Testament there are no incidents involving believers drinking poisons and only one where a believer handles a serpent. Does this invalidate the rest who bore no such testimony? Of course it is unsafe to read into the Holy Scripture from what it does not say, so we shall stay with the facts. Paul handled a viper, so to speak, (Acts 28:3), even though it was not from a voluntary act of willing to pick up a serpent to fulfil the saying of Jesus. Instead it "fastened on his hand" as he "gathered a bundle of sticks". Philip cast out unclean spirits (Acts 8:7) and Peter laid his hands on that man begging at the Gate Beautiful (Acts.3:7). There is no record of any saint drinking any deadly thing, either willingly or unwillingly.
You ask, "What point are you trying to make?" It is this: tally up all of the supernatural miracles individually performed throughout the New Testament and you still will have only a small fraction when you compare this number with those who spoke in unknown tongues. So there are more examples of saint’s speaking in tongues than there are of any other miraculous gift. Just to begin with we have "about an hundred and twenty"(Acts 1:15) who were tarrying for the promise. Add to this number those of the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) and those "certain disciples" in Ephesus (Acts 19) and you have a good number. So if there is anything that we can glean from the Acts of the Apostles it is this: there is a greater body of witness supporting the speaking of tongues then there is in casting out of demons, drinking deadly things, healing and taking up serpents.
Dear reader, if you were asked to lay down your life for the Lord Jesus would you not do so? If you were asked to drink a deadly poison rather than renounce His glorious name would you not do it with faith in His name even though you have no New Testament example of anyone having done so? Of course you would! Then why is it that when it comes to following the example of a crowd of New Testament saints, in speaking in tongues by faith, some of you recoil?
Is it not easier to say "By faith I receive the promise of the Father and I shall speak in unknown tongues just like Jesus said I would"? Not on the basis of some scripturally misguided person asking you to parrot off "repeat this sound after me baa...baa...baa...gaa...gaa…gaa...there! You've got it!"
So let me present to you a scriptural basis upon which you may act in faith:
1. I MAY RECEIVE THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES BECAUSE JESUS SAID THAT I COULD IF I'M A BELIEVER (MK.16:15).
But is this all? No; absolutely not. There is much more. Will you please turn with me to Acts chapter 1 where we begin in depth with the promise of the Father?
Let me set the scene for you. This is the day on which Jesus will ascend to heaven. He has already given the disciples the Great Commission days earlier when they were away in Galilee (Mt.28:16) and had witnessed another miracle of divine provision (Jn.21:1-14). So here they are, having left their nets, yet again, possibly all fired up and ready to "go... and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". No doubt this explains their presence in Jerusalem again. Their Captain had directed them to "GO" and now they are assembled for what will prove to be their final instructions direct from His lips.
Will He tell them to "GO" today? No. He doesn't say that. He tells them to wait. Wait for what? They have it all! They have received the Holy Spirit when He breathed into them. What more could they need?
The reading from Lk.24:49-51 parallels with the reading from Acts 1. This is the account of Jesus' last words before He ascended to heaven. The first verse Lk.24:49 deals with three issues:
1. Jesus sending the promise of the Father.
2. The disciples tarrying until the promise is received.
3. The sign of the promise is being endued with power.
Of the words of Jesus in Acts 1:4-8 only one new subject is added and that is by way of correction of the disciples faulty preoccupation with the Kingdom being restored to Israel. Other than this the final discourse between Jesus and His followers deals with:
1. The disciples waiting for the promise of the Father.
2. The "promise" of the Father being associated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5 cp. Mt.3:11; Mk.1:8 and Lk.3:16) with Jesus officiating.
3. The sign of the "promise" being the receiving of power after the Holy Spirit had come "upon" them.
Isn't it interesting how the subject matter of Jesus' very last group instruction deals with the one issue? Now situated right in the centre of that last recorded sentence are some spiritual gems.
As a consequence of the Holy Spirit coming upon them they were going to receive power. Had they not received power when they received the Holy Spirit on the evening of the resurrection? Of course they had! No one who has the Spirit of God residing in them is without power. But there was something about this power that they were to receive when Jesus baptised them in His Holy Spirit that was different and very essential to His Plan. Instead of this power being given to them to live by faith and overcome sin it was given for the outward expression of their testimony regarding what Jesus Christ had wrought for all of mankind. The wording is:
"but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth". (Acts 1:8)
So let me present to you my second scriptural reason why we should receive this second baptism at the hand of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Holy Trinity:
2. JESUS BELIEVED THAT ALL PRESENT AT HIS ASCENSION WERE IN NEED OF THIS POWER TO BE WITNESSES AND AS I HAVE THE SAME COMMISSION SHOULD I NOT, THEREFORE, RECEIVE THAT SAME ENDUEMENT FROM HEAVEN?
Some at this point will argue that Jesus was only talking to the apostles. In refutation allow me to cite the following facts:
A) What was promised to the apostles "through the Holy Ghost" (Acts 1:2) was apparently not restricted to the apostles as Acts chapters 2, 10 and 19 demonstrate clearly.
B) The response of the disciples to the ascension of Jesus Christ was to return to Jerusalem with "great joy" (Lk.24:52) and were "continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen". (Lk.24:53). Now Acts 1:14 adds to this list of saints who "continued with one accord in prayer and supplication... the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren". So the directive to wait in Jerusalem was taken up by more than the eleven apostles.
C) May I be so bold as to suggest that the group that waited for the promise of the Father in Jerusalem was at least 120? This being the case should not they expect to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit having waited for it? Yes! I believe so.
My argument goes much further. Given that the directive to wait for the "promise" was only issued to the eleven apostles it is obvious that others acted in faith upon this directive and subsequently received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was absolutely necessary to the Master's Plan. Did you notice in Acts 1:8 how that this receiving of power was for the witness to be "in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth?" I want you to see how other translations finish this verse off:
Wuest "and to the end of the earth".
Youngs "and unto the end of the earth".
N.I.V "and to the ends of the earth".
Moffatt "and to the end of the earth".
They all say the same thing, don't they? In fact when W.E.Vine deals with the word "earth" (Greek: Ge) he describes it as "the inhabited earth"[1]. Now this assists me greatly in establishing the next scriptural reason why we should receive this blessed "promise":
3. THE EMPOWERING WAS FOR THE WITNESS TO GO TO THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH. THEREFORE TONGUES WERE NOT LIMITED TO THE ANCIENT WORLD AND PEOPLE.
What is it then brethren? Did God only give the spiritual gifts to those who would be reached by the turn of the first century AD? Why then did He include the term "the uttermost part of the earth" and clearly connect that to the witness of Him through being baptised in the Holy Spirit (with the initial evidence of speaking in unknown tongues). The connection is so obvious that it should be screaming at you.
There is another school, however, that defends this verse by stating that "the uttermost part of the earth" refers only to the then, known, civilised world. The problem with this line of thought is that it creates one glaring, theological trap. Since it limits the spreading of the "power" in the "promise of the Father" as was evidenced on the day of Pentecost then it must needs also limit the spreading of the "witnesses" (Acts 1:8) to the same time period and geographical area because the two (the "power" and "the witness") are intimately connected to "the promise". There is no scriptural way of separating the two since witnessing is the scriptural fruit of having received the power. If this is so and the power signs ceased then all of western Christianity ought to throw in the towel. We would have missed the boat on the right to witness scripturally by around 1900 odd years. There seems to be no other way around this. Either the power lapsed with the witness around 1900 years ago or the witness and the power continue! And if they do continue then why should not the initial scriptural evidence of the same continue?
The fact that Jesus was aware of the baptism in the Holy Spirit having a much broader application than to be limited to His immediate listeners is obvious. So, too, is the fact that Jesus was aware of the magnitude of the task that lay ahead of the disciples in spreading the Gospel throughout the earth that He created. Was He still functioning through the limitations of human understanding as He was when the woman with "an issue of blood ... touched the border of His garment"? His response then was "Who touched me?".... Apparently He did not know. (Lk.8:43-48) Is this the same case in Acts 1:8? Is He unaware that there is more to the world than the extent of the Roman Empire? If this is the case then it creates certain doubts over the omniscience of One who has already been to present Himself to the Father in Heaven. (Jn.20:17; cp. Mt.28:9-10; Lk.24:39). I would prefer to look at the text as meaning exactly what it says and that is to literally mean "to the uttermost part of the earth".
Assuming, then, that the "power" and "the witnesses" are literally to go "to the uttermost part of the earth" would it not seem just a little incongruous of the Lord to limit one of these (the "power") and maintain the others. It is almost like the Lord saying "Now you guys in the first century can have the power to witness but you guys from century two onwards, well, you're just going to have to do without it! The reason is that since those who actually saw Me will not be around you are all going to have to do without them as well as the power that I first told them about. Now I know that you have to witness to billions and these guys only had a few million but that's just the way it is. As a consolation prize, however, what I'm going to do for you is put the whole thing in writing". Pardon the flippancy of the account but it virtually amounts up to the same regardless of how you like to word it. In refutation I would like you to consider the following points:
* There is no scriptural evidence supporting the belief that the eleven apostles saw themselves as being essential to the spreading of the Gospel throughout the earth. There is, however, evidence to support the opposite i.e. that the original eleven apostles (twelve if you include Matthias from Acts 1:26) played only a minor role in spreading the Gospel with Apostolic authority throughout the earth. To defend this argument I cite the fact that the Gospel to the uncircumcised nations was committed to two apostles, at least, neither of who were among the original eleven apostles. I am of course referring to the apostles Paul and Barnabas (see Acts 14:14 for proof of their apostleship) who having received authoritative blessing from the eldership in Jerusalem took the Gospel to the uncircumcised nations (Gal.2:7-9). So we see that there has been a shift in emphasis from the twelve apostles, who had been with Jesus "all the time" throughout His ministry (Acts 1:21), to other apostles such as Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias (Rom.16:7) and Apollos (1 Cor.4:6-9).
* The multiplication of the apostolic office was not only necessary for the fulfilment of the terms of Acts 1:8; it was also necessary for the fulfilment of the terms that are clearly laid down in Eph.4:11-16. It is here that it is clearly stated just how long God sovereignly said that the "gifts unto men" (Eph.4:8) would be around. For example these gifts (apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers) were to be for the "equipping of the saints for ministering work" (Wuest. Eph.4:12). Now there is not a single verse of scripture that indicates that these gifts were split in two; i.e. that the apostolic and prophetic gifts were annulled whilst the remaining gifts were allowed to continue. Further to this, Ephesians goes on to say that all of these giftings were for the edifying of the body of Christ "until we all reach unity in the faith and in knowledge of the Son of God and become mature attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ". Let me ask you, therefore, which position do you adopt? Are you with those who maintain that the apostolic and prophetic giftings ceased way back at the end of the first century? Then of necessity you must believe that the Body of Christ attained all of the requirements of Eph.4:12-13 back then and, as such, has since then been "no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine"? Have we all reached unity in the faith? Have we all come into a full knowledge of the Son of God? Have we all become mature attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ? If the answer is "no" to any of these questions then we, as saints, have the scriptural right to request of God that he supply us with what His Word says we need.
* As a direct follow on from the previous point it would appear obvious that if the gifted men are still to be with us then so too are their gifts. For the apostle one might expect to see them working "attesting miracles and miracles of a startling, imposing, amazement-wakening character, and miracles that demonstrate God's power". (Wuest: 2.Cor.12:12) These would include raising the dead (Acts 20:9-12) and laying hands on saints that they may receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17). For the prophet one might expect prophetic utterances that declare the will of God for individuals (Acts 21:10-11) and for large geographical areas (Acts 11:28).[2]
One more point on this issue warrants some consideration. Since the office of "bishop" is mentioned some eight times in the New Testament (though two of these appear as subscriptions to Pauline letters) it is not mentioned in Ephesians 4 as a ministry given by Jesus to the Body of Christ. It's possible that the term bishop is a term used to describe those officiating as overseers of an assembly and quite possibly referring to those with apostolic authority. In Acts 6:2 the twelve apostles tell the Church that "it is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables" so the process commenced of finding men who would fill the office of the deacon. Once again the Ephesians 4 structure is not mentioned. Similar language is used in Philippians 1:1 where "bishops and deacons" appear to be warranting separate mention. How do we sort out the problem that arises out from the question of which office really has the authority? Is it the office of "apostle" or the office of "bishop"? A brief examination of Acts 1:20 may solve the problem. Peter is talking about the demise of Judas and how it is necessary for his place to be taken. The language is interesting. "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take". In other words "as far as his temporal possessions are concerned, forget them, and leave them alone. But as far as his gifting for the Church is concerned, well that has to be replaced. What was this office that Judas occupied which Peter referred to as a "bishoprick"? Since it required being "numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26) we may safely conclude that this "bishoprick" was one and the same as "apostleship". This being so then it opens right up the number of those who would possibly have been functioning as apostles but being addressed in other terms such as "bishop" or "elder" (1 Pet.5:1).
Clearly, then, with such a growing body of "apostles" how is it possible that they all could have died out in the same era with the Church expanding so rapidly? If the writings of the early Church Fathers are to be given any weight it would seem that these fading offices were anything but fading. So, then, do we follow the recordings of the early Church fathers who tell us that the gifts of apostle and prophet indeed continued well on into the second century despite claims that they should have ceased? And how much weight do we give to these same sources which tell us that the gift of tongues continued well on into the second century? How can this be when they were supposed to have ceased abruptly decades earlier? Did not this Church which had come into "the unity of the faith" and had "become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" know that they should not have been practising these things along with the laying on of hands to heal the sick? Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?
(1) W.E.Vine, Vines expository dictionary of New Testament words. Unabridged edition. Riverside Book and Bible House. p.353
(2) Critics who attack the ministry of the prophet do so with a challenge that goes something like this: "If the prophet is uttering divine revelations direct from God Himself why does he not write all of these words of God down so that we may add them to the Holy Bible? Why not share these words of God with the entire Church since no word of God is any less important than any other? In response I can only reply that the prophet’s words of today should neither be any greater nor inferior to those of the prophets of New Testament times. These prophets include Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen and Agabus all of whom both delivered the words of God and left the Church no written record of their prophecies.
*****
Chapter 3
The Power And The Witness
Probably the most quoted chapter of the Holy Scriptures, among young Pentecostals, is Acts 2. Contained in its verses is a graphic picture of how the Holy Spirit was poured upon the believers on the day of Pentecost and how these believers exploded on to the world scene with a demonstration of power. There is perhaps no greater picture of boldness that one gets when one imagines how dynamic those believers must have appeared in going out into that sea of lost, and sometimes hostile, Jews who had come to Jerusalem for the feast. Was this boldness something that had been only distributed to the twelve apostles? The answer must be, “surely not”, for there is no support in scripture for such a claim. Indeed the case appears very strong for those who support the idea that the Holy Spirit was given to all who were in "one accord". As previously mentioned this would definitely have included the 120 who were "together" with Peter (Acts 1:15). Here the Greek is "epi to auto": "upon/towards the same". In other words the number of saints who had gathered together for the same purpose was 120. So when the day of Pentecost comes we still find "all with one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1). So little wonder that, when the Holy Spirit is given to them, we find terms used like:
"it filled all the house where they were sitting". (v.2)
"and there appeared unto them cloven tongues... and it sat upon each of them". (v.3)
"and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost". (v.4)
Why is it that all who gathered together in one accord received the "promise of the Father"? Now we know that these 120 were not the full number of those who were counted as "brethren" to Jesus. The Holy Scriptures teach us that before Jesus Christ ascended into heaven he had quite a substantial following. 1 Cor.15:6 tells us that "He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once". So where were they all? The answer is that we are not told whether they were all there on the day of Pentecost or whether the number was restricted to those who appropriated by faith the directive "but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high" (Lk.24:49). What we do know is that all who responded to the words of Jesus received the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. So why is it that we do not take to heart the lesson that is being taught here that, by far, the majority of those who receive the "promise of the Father" do so after a period of tarrying together for this precious gift? And all who tarried ultimately received. Now if we were to find some other behaviour that is consistently followed by saints throughout the Holy Scripture we know through our well established hermeneutic that this ought to be imitated by ourselves. Take for example such things as studying the scriptures, singing praises to the Lord and observing the Lord's supper. We do these things without placing a whole lot of anxiety on our lives but when it comes to following the very first behaviours of the disciples we put a stop to it? Is it not easier just to rest in what the Word says? Follow me now as I spell out yet another scriptural reason why we should receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-26 show above.)