Baptized with the Holy Ghost: A Pentecostal Perspective
Recently, my grandpa and I teamed up to write a book about our shared Pentecostal beliefs. The book is entitled Baptized with the Holy Ghost: A Pentecostal Perspective and is a brief explanation of what Pentecostals believe about the baptism of the Holy Ghost. In this blog post, I will briefly summarize the key points of the book. In the coming weeks, I will devote more time and attention to developing the themes of this summary.
Simply put, Pentecostals believe in a post-conversion work of the Spirit that is for the purpose of being an effective witness for Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8) and is evidenced by speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance (Acts 2:4). This work is for all believers and is received by faith, just like salvation is received. That Pentecostals have advocated this doesn't seem to be controversial. As we note in our book, "To be a Pentecostal is to believe in an experience of spiritual empowerment subsequent to conversion that is evidenced by speaking in tongues." You can certainly be a Christian without believing this. However, it would seem to be impossible to be a Pentecostal without also believing this.
The first aspect, then, to this definition of Pentecostal theology is that there is a post-conversion experience known as the baptism of the Holy Ghost (or various other Lukan terms, like filled with the Holy Ghost, received the Holy Ghost, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is necessary to speak of this before talking about the evidence of this experience, since, as Robert Menzies said in his book Pentecost, "Before we can speak of evidence, we must first establish the validity of the experience which it purports to validate."
To defend their belief in this post-conversion work of God, Pentecostals appeal to several narratives in the book of Acts that seem to differentiate between conversion and the reception of the Holy Ghost. One example will be sufficient for this article. In Acts 8, because of the great persecution that came against the church, Philip "went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them" (8:4). In short, his message was well-received by those who heard him. They believed what he said about the kingdom of God and Jesus and were subsequently baptized (8:13).
Quite clearly, the Samaritans had been converted under the preaching of Phillip. They were genuinely saved. However, they had not yet received the Holy Ghost (8:15); the Spirit had not fallen on any of them (8:16). Once news reached headquarters in Jerusalem of the Samaritan's reception of the word of God, they sent Peter and John to go lay hands on them and pray for them, "that they might receive the Holy Ghost" (8:15). Luke, the author of Acts, succinctly notes what transpired once the apostles reached Samaria: "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (8:17).
Thus, they received the Holy Ghost after they were converted. In other words, the two experiences (conversion and the reception of the Holy Ghost) were not identical. They were separable. As John Wyckoff observes, "The fact Luke shows that the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit can be subsequent serves to underscore that it is a separable and distinctive experience."
But, what constituted evidence that these Samaritans, in addition to others in Acts who received the Holy Ghost, were baptized with the Holy Ghost? We argue in the book, in agreement with the traditional Pentecostal understanding, that speaking in tongues is the initial physical sign that a believer has been filled with the Holy Ghost. Once again, to support this position biblically, Pentecostals turn to the book of Acts. On three separate occasions, believers who received the gift of the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues (2:4; 10:46; 19:2). I'll present one account that makes this point.
God brought it to pass that Peter would bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Acts 10 records the historical occurrence of this. Because of supernatural direction, Peter goes to the household of Cornelius, a man who is described as who feared God and prayed often (10:2). Peter explains to this congregation the fuller revelation of God in Christ Jesus. It is beyond the scope of this article to investigate Peter's sermon (10:34-43). But there is one salient point to emphasize: Peter's sermon did not have a conclusion, because while he was speaking the word of God, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word" (10:44).
Now, Peter had traveled to Cornelius's house with some Jewish believers who were astonished that the gift of the Holy Ghost had also been poured out on the Gentiles (10:45). How did they know that the Holy Ghost had been received by the Gentiles? Luke states, "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" (10:46). The speaking in tongues on the part of Cornelius and his household was irrefutable proof that the Gentiles had been baptized in the Holy Ghost.
Again, this article is simply a brief summary of Baptized with the Holy Ghost. More information from the book will be discussed in the upcoming weeks. However, it is important that I give a quick word to the allegation of some Christians that it is inappropriate to build a doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the book of Acts. In the fall, as I was working on my Master's degree from Luther Rice College and Seminary (which I just completed), I took a class on Acts, where the professor insisted that it was a poor hermeneutical method to construct a theological position from Acts. I would like to respond to this, as we tried to do in our book.
Why did this professor say this? He argued (and this is common language) that doctrine needs to be from "didactic" passages of Scripture, not "narrative" passages of Scripture. Didactic refers to those portions of Scripture that are evidently intended to teach, while narrative includes the parts of the Bible that are not intended to teach. However, I believe that there is a huge problem with this dichotomy between didactic passages and narrative passages: The Bible itself does not differentiate between these types of passages. According to the Apostle Paul, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine..." (2 Timothy 3:16). So, according to Paul, the entire canon of Scripture (Paul has in view especially the OT and, by derivation, the NT) has been expired from the proverbial lips of God and is profitable for teaching.
This line of thinking supports Stanley Horton's contention that "the Bible does not give us history to satisfy our historical curiosity but rather to teach truth." Certainly, the Scriptures are historically reliable, a thesis that I would gladly defend against the attacks of agnostics. However, the historical reliability of the Bible does not negate the fact that the Bible, in its entirety, is useful for doctrine. With that said, Pentecostals are perfectly justified in using the book of Acts to construct their understanding of the Holy Spirit's activity. This, of course, does not mean that we should rely only on Acts. It does mean, though, that Acts should have a seat at the table in any discussion about the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
I encourage you then to purchase our book. We feel like it is a good summary of the traditional Pentecostal understanding of what it means to be baptized in the Holy Ghost. If you are a Pentecostal, this book will provide you with a stronger biblical foundation for your belief system. If you are not a Pentecostal, but interested in what your Pentecostal friends or neighbors believe, Baptized with the Holy Ghost is exactly the resource that you are looking for.
Simply put, Pentecostals believe in a post-conversion work of the Spirit that is for the purpose of being an effective witness for Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8) and is evidenced by speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance (Acts 2:4). This work is for all believers and is received by faith, just like salvation is received. That Pentecostals have advocated this doesn't seem to be controversial. As we note in our book, "To be a Pentecostal is to believe in an experience of spiritual empowerment subsequent to conversion that is evidenced by speaking in tongues." You can certainly be a Christian without believing this. However, it would seem to be impossible to be a Pentecostal without also believing this.
The first aspect, then, to this definition of Pentecostal theology is that there is a post-conversion experience known as the baptism of the Holy Ghost (or various other Lukan terms, like filled with the Holy Ghost, received the Holy Ghost, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is necessary to speak of this before talking about the evidence of this experience, since, as Robert Menzies said in his book Pentecost, "Before we can speak of evidence, we must first establish the validity of the experience which it purports to validate."
To defend their belief in this post-conversion work of God, Pentecostals appeal to several narratives in the book of Acts that seem to differentiate between conversion and the reception of the Holy Ghost. One example will be sufficient for this article. In Acts 8, because of the great persecution that came against the church, Philip "went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them" (8:4). In short, his message was well-received by those who heard him. They believed what he said about the kingdom of God and Jesus and were subsequently baptized (8:13).
Quite clearly, the Samaritans had been converted under the preaching of Phillip. They were genuinely saved. However, they had not yet received the Holy Ghost (8:15); the Spirit had not fallen on any of them (8:16). Once news reached headquarters in Jerusalem of the Samaritan's reception of the word of God, they sent Peter and John to go lay hands on them and pray for them, "that they might receive the Holy Ghost" (8:15). Luke, the author of Acts, succinctly notes what transpired once the apostles reached Samaria: "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (8:17).
Thus, they received the Holy Ghost after they were converted. In other words, the two experiences (conversion and the reception of the Holy Ghost) were not identical. They were separable. As John Wyckoff observes, "The fact Luke shows that the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit can be subsequent serves to underscore that it is a separable and distinctive experience."
But, what constituted evidence that these Samaritans, in addition to others in Acts who received the Holy Ghost, were baptized with the Holy Ghost? We argue in the book, in agreement with the traditional Pentecostal understanding, that speaking in tongues is the initial physical sign that a believer has been filled with the Holy Ghost. Once again, to support this position biblically, Pentecostals turn to the book of Acts. On three separate occasions, believers who received the gift of the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues (2:4; 10:46; 19:2). I'll present one account that makes this point.
God brought it to pass that Peter would bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Acts 10 records the historical occurrence of this. Because of supernatural direction, Peter goes to the household of Cornelius, a man who is described as who feared God and prayed often (10:2). Peter explains to this congregation the fuller revelation of God in Christ Jesus. It is beyond the scope of this article to investigate Peter's sermon (10:34-43). But there is one salient point to emphasize: Peter's sermon did not have a conclusion, because while he was speaking the word of God, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word" (10:44).
Now, Peter had traveled to Cornelius's house with some Jewish believers who were astonished that the gift of the Holy Ghost had also been poured out on the Gentiles (10:45). How did they know that the Holy Ghost had been received by the Gentiles? Luke states, "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" (10:46). The speaking in tongues on the part of Cornelius and his household was irrefutable proof that the Gentiles had been baptized in the Holy Ghost.
Again, this article is simply a brief summary of Baptized with the Holy Ghost. More information from the book will be discussed in the upcoming weeks. However, it is important that I give a quick word to the allegation of some Christians that it is inappropriate to build a doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the book of Acts. In the fall, as I was working on my Master's degree from Luther Rice College and Seminary (which I just completed), I took a class on Acts, where the professor insisted that it was a poor hermeneutical method to construct a theological position from Acts. I would like to respond to this, as we tried to do in our book.
Why did this professor say this? He argued (and this is common language) that doctrine needs to be from "didactic" passages of Scripture, not "narrative" passages of Scripture. Didactic refers to those portions of Scripture that are evidently intended to teach, while narrative includes the parts of the Bible that are not intended to teach. However, I believe that there is a huge problem with this dichotomy between didactic passages and narrative passages: The Bible itself does not differentiate between these types of passages. According to the Apostle Paul, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine..." (2 Timothy 3:16). So, according to Paul, the entire canon of Scripture (Paul has in view especially the OT and, by derivation, the NT) has been expired from the proverbial lips of God and is profitable for teaching.
This line of thinking supports Stanley Horton's contention that "the Bible does not give us history to satisfy our historical curiosity but rather to teach truth." Certainly, the Scriptures are historically reliable, a thesis that I would gladly defend against the attacks of agnostics. However, the historical reliability of the Bible does not negate the fact that the Bible, in its entirety, is useful for doctrine. With that said, Pentecostals are perfectly justified in using the book of Acts to construct their understanding of the Holy Spirit's activity. This, of course, does not mean that we should rely only on Acts. It does mean, though, that Acts should have a seat at the table in any discussion about the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
I encourage you then to purchase our book. We feel like it is a good summary of the traditional Pentecostal understanding of what it means to be baptized in the Holy Ghost. If you are a Pentecostal, this book will provide you with a stronger biblical foundation for your belief system. If you are not a Pentecostal, but interested in what your Pentecostal friends or neighbors believe, Baptized with the Holy Ghost is exactly the resource that you are looking for.
Comments
Post a Comment