In a previous post that I have written today regarding the Holy Spirit there was a short discussion between Joseph Landlaw and myself where I wrote that I deny the doctrine of initial evidence. In response to this he asked three questions that I thought could only be answered with a full blog post . For those who are unfamiliar with this doctrine it is characteristic of Pentecostal soteriology. It argues that the Holy Spirit is an essential aspect of New Covenant salvation and one knows that the Holy Spirit has united with the believer when the believer speaks in tongues. While I affirm that the Holy Spirit is an essential soteriological reality I deny that one does not have the Spirit unless glossolalia has been experienced. Since Joseph is a Pentecostal he asked me the following three question which I am answering the best I can through the medium:
(1) [If faith is when the Spirit enters] would the apostle’s have had the Spirit before the day of Pentecost since they did have faith in Jesus?
No. It is apparent that both the Lukan and Johannine understanding of the New Covenant experience of the Spirit demand the ascension of Christ take place (see Jn. 7.37-29; Acts 1.9-11; 2.1-13). Paul affirms this as he argues that when the man Jesus resurrected he became one with the Spirit to the point where he now is the one who gives believers the Spirit so we can become like him (see 1 Cor. 15.42-49 and Rom. 8.1-17). So if we ask this answer this question from Lukan, Johnannine, and Pauline perspective it is evident that the Spirit did not do his work until Christ’s work was completed which includes the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
I contend that from all three perspectives the Spirit is part of our being saved but not just because we have to have some experience to go to heaven rather than hell. Instead, we must be united with the Spirit of God to be resurrected from the dead. In Genesis 2.7 the difference between the adam and the adamah is the breath of God. The Psalmist understood this to refer to the Spirit of God who sustains all creation (see Ps. 104.28-30) as did the prophet Ezekiel (see 37.1-10). If humans do not have the Spirit death is inevitable (see Gen. 6.3 where God shortens the life span of humans by withdrawing his Spirit). It is because of the Spirit of God that believers with resurrect and all creation will be set free (see Romans 8, esp. 11, 18-23.
What are we to do with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, so forth and so on. I think they “receive” the Spirit at the resurrection. The major difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant interaction with the Spirit is that the resurrecting Spirit of the eschaton is experienced now by New Covenant believers. The Spirit is not something you must check off as an obscure experience to get out of hell; it is how we reunite with God so we can conquer death! This is why in Paul could see our “inner man” being redeemed already while out outer man waits for full redemption (see Eph. 1-3; cf. 2 Cor 4.16). What Paul means by this is we experience as a “down payment”–which is language he uses in reference the Spirit throughout his epistles–of internal redemption while waiting for external redemption which is to occur at the resurrection. For Old Covenant believers this whole process occurs at the eschaton. We experience one half of it early. We are a preview of the world to come in this age. The Spirit is essentially an eschatological category.
To this I am sure Joseph says “amen” but I want to emphasize that many Pentecostal groups don’t say why the Spirit saves. If you see it is as something that must be experienced and can only be experienced if you speak in tongues you miss Paul’s Pneumatology altogether. This “already, but not yet” was only made possible when Jesus united humanity to the Spirit through his death, burial, resurrection, and ascention.
(2) Why did the Samaritans not have the Spirit, even though they accepted the gospel and were even baptized?
There are two things we must note here: (a) Luke’s Pneumatological language differs from Paul’s. They say similar things but not the same things. (b) There is a literary point to the conversion narratives where people speak in tongues or other signs and wonders occur.
This literary thesis is set forth in Acts 1.8 when Jesus is quoted saying “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.” This is exactly the geographical-Pneumatological line Luke follows. The Spirit falls in Jerusalem first and it has a certain set of accompanied actions (2.1-13); it occurs in Samaria only when Peter and John are there to “witness” it in 8.14-24; it occurs amongst the Gentiles (beginning to go to the “uttermost parts”) only when Peter is there to “witness” it in 10.34-48.
Why must Peter “witness” the Spirit being poured out the same way upon Samaritans and Gentiles as it was poured out on Jews? To set a model for every individual conversion? No. Otherwise how do we explain the Ethiopian Eunich in 8.25-40 who is converted by doesn’t experience these things or the jailer who is merely baptized at Paul’s command in 16.30-40 or Paul’s own conversion in 9.1-19? Rather, these forms were for Peter to see “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality” (10.34)!
Why is it important for Peter to be a witness? At the Acts 15 Council it is the testimony of Peter than leads to the decision to include Gentiles into the people of God as Gentiles. In 15.8 Peter says that all are equal because he saw the Spirit fall on Gentiles just like it did not the Jews in Jerusalem. He does not say this is a conversion pattern for every individual; he sees it as the opening of the doors of the kingdom to Samaritans and then Gentiles as all equal with Jews. So don’t be mislead to think Luke disagrees with Paul and he sees every individual lacking these experiences as lacking the Spirit. Rather, he uses “Spirit-filled” language to discuss group conversions.
(3) Finally, why would Paul ask the Ephesian believers (Disciples of John) as the TNIV and ESV put it, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
I will note that in 19.1-7 this is again a group conversion, not the conversion of an individual so there must be a socio-religious dynamic to it. I think this is supported by John’s emphasis of the secondary status of John the Baptist in the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel. But besides that when he says “…when you believed” and they said they hadn’t heard of any Holy Spirit it led Paul to discover they had been baptized unto John. Once they were baptized unto Jesus they received the Spirit and Luke’s argument is that even the disciples of John are welcomed into Christ’s kingdom because even those who have missed Christ by continuing to follow John can now come into the kingdom just like the others.
Can you use this passage to teach that glossolalia can be a normative experience or an acceptable experience? Yes. Can you teach it as a dogmatic, necessary experience? No. To do so ignores Luke’s primary argument that Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles–and even those who have continued to rival the disciples of Jesus by remaining disciples of John–can all come into the Kingdom. The Spirit did a special act to validate all groups.
So to make it clear, I denounced the doctrine of initial evidence because I don’t find it in Paul and I think it can only be found in Luke if you misunderstand his “group conversion” fulfillment of 1.8 as the prototype for individual conversions while ignoring that his actual individual conversion narratives look nothing like the group conversions.
For my full treatment see the series I wrote on “The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts” here. I guarantee that if anything in this rambling post is unclear one of those posts has the answer. If not, let me know how I can clarify.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian, thanks for your response/post.
I have a few (ok a lot) of comments and will then stop pestering your blog 🙂
They are numbered according to the previous questions asked. Sorry they are so long…
1.I agree that the Spirit could not have been given until the ascension took place, yet fail to see how this answers the question. Did it take Jesus 10 (or however many days it was) to ascend? If not Why did God withhold the Spirit from people who had believed (had faith) on him? I strongly believe in the sovereignty of God, that he does things according to his counsel and not ours, but I fail to see why he would deliberately break the manor of how/when the Spirit enters a believers life on the very first time he allows this miracle to happen. I do believe there are significant reasons for God doing it in this manor (it parallels the first Pentecost as well as allows for a large crowd form all over the world to be present). The question I am asking is why would God not give these believers the Spirit the moment the ascension took place if simply having faith (mental assent to the Gosple, Good News) is when the Spirit enters?
2.I also believe that your “literary thesis” is flawed. Acts as you mention is written by Luke as well as the book that bears his name. Acts 1:1-12 is a summery of Luke, with Acts 1:8 being a summery of Luke 24:46-49 (which is near Near Emmaus). They were to be witnesses not of something to happen, but what had already happened (the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus). That God used Peter specifically to bare witness of this progression is not to be denied, nor that it was essential to the Acts 11 and Acts 15 counsels. He bore witness of the Gospel and bore witness of the brining into Christ of the Jews, the Samaritans and the Gentiles.
Therefore to say that Acts 1:8 is saying that Peter (and it has to only apply to Peter since the rest were not at Cornelius’ house) is going to be the witness of those who receive the Spirit in the progression Jesus mentioned to tell a counsel (or merely know for himself) that God has no partiality, in my opinion, is taking that scripture and the one it is quoted from far out of context. Jesus was saying in that verse that they were to be witnesses of HIS finished work, not that of the Spirit being pored out (again that does not take away form their/Peters role as witness(es) of the events that unfold in Acts).
So again my question is, why would God break how/when he fills a believer with the Spirit? Or does Mental assent not mean Spirit baptism?
3.Finally in the Acts 19 passage I think some more study is required. Luke called them “disciples”, which elsewhere in Acts he always means Christians. Like Apollos these believers most likely knew Jesus was the messiah, yet did not understand everything that entailed yet. When Paul approaches them, they are believed to be fellow believers in Christ. Why would he ask believers in Christ such a question? If I were to ask you the same what would you say? Regardless of the context, How were they to prove they had received the Spirit (if they were really believers) or reply to this question if it just happens at “faith” (mental assent)?
Maybe you could look at all this (even if you took my perspective on these passages) and still say that “tongues” is not the initial evidence. Whatever your conclusions might be, I believe saying that simple mental assent to the Gospel is when the Spirit enters is something that needs to be looked at much more closely. This whole discussion stems form that quote you put up by Fee. I am simply asking that you think about this again (form your writing on Acts I know you have already done a lot of thinking on this…).
The Spirit is essential, not just for an experience, but for the regenerating Power and Spiritual wisdom we have not access to without. The indwelling Spirit is essential. With out the Spirit, we “don’t belong to him”. I want to belong to the God is have faith in. As you said, the Spirit is essential for the resurrection. I want to be resurrected into life with Christ.
i left a sentence unfinished in #3… Why would he ask believers in Christ such a question…. if it were the norm?
Again sorry for the long reply,
God Bless you
There’s one thing I want to note about the Pentecostal view: Classical Pentecostalism is careful to differentiate the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at repentance and the baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit as empowerment for witness, which happens subsequently. There are groups who think glossalalia is a necessary experience for salvation, but that’s not the classical view. From your post one could infer that Pentecostals have glossalalia as playing a part in our salvation, but that’s not the case.
I’d also argue that the gospel narratives present the Spirit in largely empowerment roles. In Luke especially that’s the case. I think the point of the “receiving of the Spirit” in John and Acts is more about mission than salvation. It’s used as a sign of the inclusion of the Gentiles, but I think it’s Paul who gives us the most directly about the Spirit and salvation.
I myself would argue for some difference between indwelling and empowerment, though I would say that tongues is a sign and not the sign of such an empowerment. I’d also note the Luke uses baptism language for empowerment, while Paul uses baptism language for indwelling.
Joseph: Let me answer the questions number for number…
1. You may be saying more than I am saying when you use the term mental assent. I am not saying that someone just cognitively affirms some doctrines about Christ and suddenly the Holy Spirit becomes a reality. It is much more complex than that though it does include that. What I fear is that your soteriological system demands that each person have this same single defining moment when everyone can know that this person is part of the elect. I don’t think that can happen until the final judgment. Even in your system someone can speak in tongues before eventually falling away. We must take comfort in the subjectivity of each person’s claim to have found salvation in Christ while waiting for this reality to be proven on the last day.
As far as you biblical chronology is concerned it is simple: Pentecost. Pentecost was in part the celebration of the giving of the Torah at Sinai through Moses which defined the Old Covenant people of God. Now Pentecost is the celebration of the giving of the Spirit in Jerusalem through Christ which defines the New Covenant people of God. Every time a Hebrew/Jew was born after Moses’ giving of the Law there was no need for Sinai to occur for everyone. Once it was given it marked the beginning of a new era. Likewise, it is not essential for everyone to revisit Jerusalem (figuratively) since the covenant has been given.
The ascension was vital because the Spirit has to continue the work of the Son. If the Son was here he could not rule from the heavenly realm over humanity through the Spirit (when that occurs time as we know it will have reached the final eschaton). There is still a historical progression from Passover (Passion Week) to Sinai (Pentecost) that marked Israel’s history that now marks our own.
2. Even if you disagree with the Apostle Peter being the witness and you prefer that the power to be a witness refers to all the disciples this doesn’t change the literary thesis in general. It is still obvious that Peter had to be there to see these particular outpourings of the Spirit upon each group as laid out in 1.8. It is likewise true that when Luke brings this to its pinnacle we find him at the Jerusalem Council. So again, why do you see this as a model for all believers. It is not even so in this book. This is an assertion that you fail to support. I must ask in return why not one of the three individual conversion narratives look anything like the group narratives? Why does no individual have the conversion experiences that only the groups have if Luke was so concerned about this being the model of all authentic conversion?
3. As with point #1 you can assume that these disciples where believers in Christ (which it does not say; it says they were baptized unto John whose ministry is before Pentecost). Again, this is a group narrative. While it is not ethnically based like the previous three it is still a group narrative. If I followed your logic that every time Luke describes conversions happening a certain way with certain phenomenon I would also be lead to believe that all conversions must accompany certain signs of the Spirit and cannot happen outside of a group conversion. We must be consistent if we think Luke was saying this is the model for authentic conversion! Why don’t you argue for the essential aspect of group conversions?
I don’t have a problem with your last paragraph. I do think over time we will see something other than a person saying they thought it was true and therefore it is true. I do think the Spirit will become evident in that person’s life. I refuse to join many Pentecostals in drawing an outline of how this must happen. I hope my responses help clarify some things.
Alex: I’d be somewhat comfortable saying that various signs occur indicating more of a “filling” of the Spirit. When the Apostles prayed for boldness they were “filled” with the Spirit. This echoes the difference you are setting forth between the Spirit as initially indwelling at faith the reception of some sort of subsequent empowering experience though I think even classical Pentecostalism takes this too far by making it too black and white. Whose to say that Luke or Paul’s list of particular Spirit acts are complete and that God can not show a sign in the life of the believer not listed?
I would definitely agree that classical Pentacostalism takes it too far. Even in Acts it’s not clear that speaking in tongues is the evidence of bapstism/filling in the Holy Spirit. Honestly, I think Luke’s emphasis on tongues has more to do with the inclusion of all nations into the covenant, rather than setting forth nice categories for us. He is very interested, in my opinion, in setting forth a doctrine of Spirit baptism, but I think his categories are much different than ones that often get debated. I’m very interested to see what Keener has to say about the matter in his upcoming commentary. I recently listened to some lectures he gave at AGTS and they were fantastic.
Alas, if only I had the time to read more NT stuff. I’ve been trying to get acquainted with Patristics stuff recently!
Yes, there is surely a “reversal-of-the-Tower-of-Babel” motif there. Luke is a complicated theologian and classical Pentecostalism seeks to put him in nice, black-and-white categories that I think misses him altogether.
Brian –
In the second question, you answered:
While I believe the book of Acts is an outworking of the thesis of 1:8, I don’t think it is as neatly portrayed as Jerusalem — Samaria — Gentiles. Don’t forget that, following the Samaritan conversion and Spirit reception, it was immediately onto a Gentile later in ch.8. Then you have another Jew with Paul in ch.9 who also had a delayed reception of the Spirit. Then you have Gentiles in Acts 10.
I don’t say any of this to say that glossolalia is the initial evidence of reception of the Spirit/baptism in the Spirit. But it makes me more open to a subsequent baptism in the Spirit, rather than seeing that it always happens at once. All at once is ideal, but not always the reality. And, interestingly enough, though tongues was not always the initial evidence (though some Pentecostals try hard to make it), it is interesting that when people where baptised/filled with the Spirit in Acts, something did come from their lips – prophecy, tongues, praise, proclamation of the word.
Scott,
This is true but you do have this order working just fine if you keep the Apostle Peter as the main character of this motif. It retains a neat order of Jerusalem/Judea to Samaria to the Gentile world. The Gentile at the end of Acts 8 is with Philip who we have already seen is not consider by Luke to be the legitimate witness when his ministry does not result in the visible evidence that Peter must see from the Samaritans to know their conversion is just like the Jews. Also, it is an individual conversion narrative. The same can be said of Paul in Acts 9. It is an individual and Peter is not present.
Luke has a special purpose for Peter and simply put he is the definitive witness at the Jerusalem Council.
Brian,
I know my question may be pretty subjective and you don’t have to answer it but in practical terms, have you been around someone who you know who is really on fire for the Lord and “something” about them just makes you want to be around them all the time – and then been around one who perhaps for one reason or another though you “know” they are a Christian and they profess to be such but you keep wondering “how can this be?”
what would you say is the difference?
Brian,
This is very subjective since for some it has been there passion to reach a certain people as a missionary, for others it has been their consistency and wisdom through a life with little fanfare but much loyalty to Christ, for some it has been a desire to use scholarship for the health of the church, others have wished to engage the monastic life. I have known Christians of all these types and more and I have often felt they were better Christians than myself who made me hunger to grow closer to God.
Usually those who don’t have this quality are very concerns with the world and being accepted by this or that aspect of popular society or those whose faith commitment is occasionally going to worship on Sunday.
Well, the whole experience of receiving the Baptism with the Spirit and speaking in tongues is a subjective one and so can be hard to explain in a way that will satisfy most evangelicals. Personally, I think it is an issue more of systematic theology than one of exegetical theology, which have their differences, no?
Brian,
Systematic theology can have differences, sure. But how can we say much about the meaning of the experience if we do not ground it in the meaning of the experience according to Scripture?
Well, that is all we can do (ground it in the meaning of the experience according to Scripture) and I think Pentecostals are doing the best they can to explain it in a biblical supported way. Remember, we do see people receive the Spirit and evidence that reception with speaking in tongues in the book of Acts – so the experience should be considered biblically valid because it has precedent.
I just know too these explanations don’t always (and probably won’t) satisfy many evangelicals, who tend to understand Acts only as history. The problem word is “experience.” Once that word gets mentioned, it’s hard to move forward in discussions with many who tend to downplay the role of experience in the Christian’s faith life and practice, which much of evangelical theology tends to do.
Brian,
I am in total agreement that we have precedent for speaking in tongues being a sign of the infilling work of the Spirit. I don’t disagree with that. I disagree that it is the initial sign. I think attempts to mark one obvious defining moment that should be shared by all Christians is a bit too clear cut for reality.
Even Acts depicts people who are converted (interestingly enough all the “individual conversion” narratives) without the fanfare of other narratives. We argue from silence if we say that the eunuch, the jailer, and the Apostle Paul all spoke in tongues but Luke doesn’t mention it (I know Paul says he spoke in tongues, but I am speaking of Luke’s narrative). If he didn’t feel obligated to demand that some sort of experience that we see in group conversion narratives be mentioned as happening to legitimate individual conversions that neither do I.
Brian –
Thanks for the response. I don’t deny Peter as the main character in Acts 1-12, and it was significant that he saw the reception of the Spirit by the Samaritans and the Gentiles. But I still think it is not so neatly packaged in the midst of the outworking of Acts 1:8 through the whole of Acts.
Can we imagine how this practically outworked itself for the Samaritans? Interesting no teaching came to say ‘this is not how it is supposed to be’ (the delayed reception of the Spirit). Maybe it did, since not everything is recorded in Scripture. But a major thing happened that you wonder if Peter & John would have explained to keep them from forming any kind of concept about how the Spirit was or was not to be received – meaning no correction came to a delayed reception. Again, I believe the delay was so that Peter (& John) could come down and see this and have their theology rearranged by God Himself. Philip would have been just fine, but God was doing something in Peter (& the other Jewish apostles-leaders). But there still maintains some non-tightness to the outworking here.
I believe the same continues with Paul, noting he is the next ‘main character’ in Luke’s anthology. Here was a Jew who himself, later on, had a delayed reception/filling/baptism in the Spirit. I suppose his testimony was heard around – not just the Damascus road part, but the Ananias details and delayed reception of the Spirit.
So I’m still very aware that a tight box should not be formed within the overall outworking of Luke’s intention in Acts.
You are correct. It is not as tidy as some may like it but I don’t think alternative readings that go in the direction of either the doctrine of initial evidence or the so-called “Second Blessing” do a better job.
Thanks Brian. I am not a huge fan of ‘tongues as the initial evidence’, though Acts seems to support that those who did receive the baptism of the Spirit were aware in some form. A bit different from ‘walk the aisle, pray this prayer, but you might not feel anything.’ Not wanting to put everything on feelings, but those people knew they had received the Spirit. 🙂
And I don’t believe the baptism of the Spirit has to be subsequent to salvation. But it very well could be. I think Acts gives us room for both.
ScottL,
For Luke it seems there can be some sort of additional “filling” but my reading of Paul suggest that his view of when the Spirit actually indwells the believer would need to be categorically different from Luke if there is going to be unity between the two (unless of course Luke and Paul had different perspectives on the infilling of the Spirit, but I don’t think this is so). It could be that this “filling” is an empowerment distinct from Paul’s salvific, resurrection-guaranteeing indwelling.
I am all for their being some sort of experience to affirm the reception of the Spirit. I just refuse to say it is one expression –tongues.
Scott wrote: “And I don’t believe the baptism of the Spirit has to be subsequent to salvation. But it very well could be. I think Acts gives us room for both.”
In the AG we say it this way (or something like it): we believe the Baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs subsequently to salvation logically if not chronologically.
We believe one can’t be filled with the Spirit and not saved thus the “logical if not chronological.”
But I agree with Scott that the Pentecostal experience can happen at salvation or it can happen at some point after salvation (right away or some time later, with “some time” being variable from hours, days, weeks, months to years) – and that the NT leaves room for both.
Brian, in the AG we say specifically that speaking in tongues is the “initial physical evidence” of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit – drawn from the instances seen in the Acts narrative. Based on those instances, what other “physical” evidences are there – if physical evidence is not needed, what evidences should suffice one has received the Pentecostal experience?
Brian,
I would think that the gift of healing, prophecy, word of knowledge or wisdom, and interpretation of tongues are just as “physical”, no?
Brian, in the AG we say these are spiritual gifts not “physical” evidences one has been baptized with the Holy Spirit per se, except perhaps prophetic speech.
I guess that is one area where I would disagree with the AOG! 🙂
Brian,
This post of yours is of great interest to me. My email notification has been sitting in my inbox for weeks, just nagging at me to get to it. I began to write up my comments, but they proved to be quite long (surprised?). Rather than taking up a bunch of space on your blog, perhaps I could get your email and we could discuss it off-line–that is, unless you would prefer I post here instead. Let me know. Thanks!
Either/or. My email is brianleport@gmail.com.
Hi, I would like to comment on the three questions.
(1) [If faith is when the Spirit enters] would the apostle’s have had the Spirit before the day of Pentecost since they did have faith in Jesus?
The simple answer to this question is scripture its self. “Jesus Said, I will be with you and even in you.”
Two different things, with your question He was with them, not yet in them. Being with them is to be anointed with the Spirit, when He goes into a person, that is the baptism of the Spirit.
(2) Why did the Samaritans not have the Spirit, even though they accepted the gospel and were even baptized?
For first He is with a person and if they continue He will be in the person. Look at Judas, He had the anointing, just like lots of people today. He cast out devils, healed the sick when Jesus sent out the twelve, yet he was a devil himself.
(3) Finally, why would Paul ask the Ephesian believers (Disciples of John) as the TNIV and ESV put it, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
The KJ says “since you believed”, which is correct. All people go through the same process. First comes the anointing and sometimes that is all that is every received. For few will go on to receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. “Many are called, but few are chosen.
Speaking is tongues is not and has never been the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is a Lie and has deceived many to believe they have it and don’t
God Bless
bro marlin