DOES THE HOLY SPIRIT COME ALONG AFTERWARDS?

The community of believers in our time should rejoice that a sort of “era of the Holy Spirit” is upon us. Not that the Spirit has not always been with God’s church upon earth, but that there is an enthusiasm for his mission and ministry in the life of the saint as never before in recent history. Cassettes and tapes on topics about the Spirit are making their way around the world and across the country like courtiers on their busy flights. Books on the Spirit and his gifts are in great demand and it is the Spirit-concerned speakers that are being listened to. Though hardly predictable a decade ago, the Holy Spirit is the issue in the modern church, especially in our own nation. A historian of this era might well name his chapter on this phenomenon The Discovery of the Holy Spirit.

True, many in the Churches of Christ have not yet made the discovery. They are like those twelve Ephesians encountered by Paul who had not so much as heard that the Holy Spirit had been given. But there are thousands among us who have embarked upon a completely new life in the Spirit, rejoicing in the celebration of Jesus and experiencing happiness they never dreamed possible. Many of these are “charismatic” in that they speak in tongues or have other such gifts. Scores of these I know personally, and in nearly every case there is a fulfillment of life that has given new meaning to discipleship in Jesus. In all this I rejoice and only hope that more and more of our people will be deeply touched by the Spirit’s presence in their lives.

But in all this there is one thing that disturbs me, and I find it permeating the entire Spirit movement. This is the view that the Spirit comes to the believer sometime after he has turned to Jesus in faith and obedience, perhaps many years afterwards. A close friend sometimes confides in me, “May received last night!” or perhaps, “John has been seeking for over a year now.” This seeking and receiving is in reference to the Holy Spirit, often described as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Some enthusiasts have special prayers that such seekers will receive then and there, which is expected to result in glossolalia. This is usually with the laying on of hands, perhaps by several people, and the seeking and the praying is sometimes traumatic, suggesting that God may be moved to give the Spirit if there is sufficient emotional appeal or perhaps surrender. If the seeker does not receive, it is presumed that the Spirit is not yet ready, and so the search continues.

Many of these, if not all of them, have long since believed in Jesus and been baptized into his Body. But their profession has had little meaning, and love, hope and joy have been unknown qualities. They meet someone, perhaps an old friend whose life is transformed, who has the joy and fulfillment that they have always wanted. The friend shares his discovery of the Holy Spirit, and so a new seeker is enrolled. Tongues is not always a part of this, but it often is, and nearly always “the baptism” is verified by the gift of tongues.

There is often moving drama in the stories, leaving the uniniated to suppose that he is missing something great and so should join the search. A husband may receive during the night, accompanied by a light in the room or some sort of subjective experience that defies description. It is as if he were floating on a cloud instead of a Simmons innerspring, and then and there, while his wife sleeps on unaware, he speaks in a new tongue and praises God with a joy before unimagined. His discovery is too precious to keep, not even until morning, so he arouses his wife to tell her the good news. They pray together until morning, with the wife mystified, if not envious, of her husband’s new prayer language. Not receiving herself that night, she comes in from a prayer circle, and while her husband sits up in bed to get some indication of her progress, she looks at him radiantly and silently, giving that nod of the head that is reminiscent of the return from the doctor’s office verifying the first pregnancy.

Even when the authenticity of such experiences is granted, some severe perils remain. One is elitism. Such ones can easily conceive of themselves as “in” as few believers ever are, and their temptation is either to insist that others follow in their experience or to assume an unintended superiority over others, or both. They easily become crusaders for glossolalia, and may even begin to pity those who remain uninitiated. They often leave their old haunts where they could best witness to a deeper spiritual life and join that elite group of super saints.

Another hazard is that of universalizing what is particular, or making catholic what is private and personal. Even if the Spirit blesses one in a spate of light and sound, followed by a crescendo of tongues, it does not follow that he will deal with other believers in the same way. The scriptures state clearly that “There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit” (l Cor. 12:4), and the apostle makes an affirmation by way of a question, “Do all speak with tongues?” (l Cor. 12:30)

But, believe me, the temptation to universalize these spiritual experiences is not only real, but all too often yielded to. By implication many of these enthusiasts answer Paul’s question with a Yes, all can or should speak in tongues. I can understand the weight of the temptation, for, after all, if you have had a scintillating “send” from the Lord, especially after years of depression, you not only want to share it but make it the experience of others as well.

And so it should be, if indeed it is a catholic feature of the faith. If the scriptures make it clear that a given experience is for all, in all times and in all circumstances, then, and only then, is it to be expected of others. Otherwise it should be revered as something special from the Lord and held as private property. It appears difficult for a “charismatic” to realize that the Spirit may be at work in others in ways that are just as real and precious, even if not as dramatic. Surely the Spirit acts in our lives according to our needs, and it is folly to suppose that our needs are identical.

With all this said, I must give further expression to my misgiving to the idea that the Holy Spirit comes along afterwards, and that even after being in Christ for years one may anticipate receiving the baptism as a kind of “second blessing.” And this is presumed to be the normal experience for the revitalized believer, as if the scriptures taught this as a matter of course.

The truth is that such an idea stands highly vulnerable before an open Bible. No congregation is urged to seek a baptism in the Holy Spirit. No believer can be found seeking or receiving any kind of “second blessing.” There is no evidence that any saints, once they had believed and obeyed the gospel, went on into this afterwards experience sometime later. No one is referred to as seeking and no one referred to as receiving. And the scriptures are silent about believers having to plea, plod, and placate in an agonizing search for the Spirit, more often failing than not.

The subject of our concern is referred to as “the promised Holy Spirit,” and the scriptures make it clear in what context this promise is realized. Eph. 1:13 reads: “In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.” This shows that the Ephesians received the Spirit, God’s promise, when they became Christians. The rest of the letter reveals that the Spirit was the source of their enlightenment (1:18), the means of their access to the Father (2:18) and their growth in the Body (2:22). The Spirit was their source of strength as he dwelt within them (3:16) and the creator of their unity (4:3). In 4:30 the apostle speaks of the Spirit not only as dwelling with them and sealing them for the day of redemption, but as a Person so close to them that he can be grieved by their foul talk. For him to say “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God in whom you were sealed” indicates that the Spirit was a living reality in their lives, as much so as any other person. You don’t grieve an idea, or a principle, or a power, or a book.

All this about the Spirit in that Ephesian church — and when did they receive the Spirit? When they believed and were baptized (Acts 19:1-7). As much as he says about the Spirit, there is nothing that approximates the notion that once they were saints they were to embark upon a quest for the Spirit. He does say to them in 5:18, “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit,” but this can hardly be a reference to some completely new experience, different from all else that is said about the Spirit in their lives. It has to refer to their appropriating or drinking deep of the blessing that God had given them. This is why we should always seek a closer walk with the indwelling Spirit, even to the place of being so controlled by his presence that it is as if we were Spirit -intoxicated.

It is in order, therefore, to seek and pray for a continual filling of the Holy Spirit of promise that God bequeathed to us when we accepted Jesus. If this is what is meant by “the baptism of the Holy Spirit,” then I say Praise God! But I hear something else when people speak of seeking and receiving, as if the Spirit comes along after people accept Jesus, perhaps many years afterwards, and only then after a considerable ordeal.

The promised Spirit was also proclaimed on Pentecost. Acts 2:38 says: “Repent, and be baptized ever one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The next verse identifies “the promise” (of the Spirit) as being for Jews and Gentiles alike. Among our pioneers it was Walter Scott that used “the finger method” and spelled out to folk God’s plan for them on five fingers — Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Remission of Sins, and the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, along the way we dropped the last promise and added Confession to the list, which Scott appropriately left out. I believe like Walter Scott, and before him like the apostle, that the Holy Spirit is a gift that God grants to those who are baptized into Jesus.

Rom. 8:9 makes it clear that if the Spirit is not in the believer he is not a true Christian: “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” How then can a longtime Christian seek what he must already have if he is a true believer? If one is not really a believer, if he were devoid of faith at the time of his baptism (Campbell sees this as the only reason for re-immersion), then it would make as much sense for him to seek the Spirit as the remission of sins —and all other blessings that attend obedience.

Otherwise we must grant that every believer has the Spirit. He may even suppose that the Spirit is in a Book, and seek to gain fulfillment by memorizing the Book. But still he has the Spirit, however grieved the Spirit may be over the person’s ignorance of his preserce. The Spirit is gracious, for the believer’s body remains his temple (l Cor. 6:19), even when, as with the Corinthians, the Spirit has reason to feel less than welcome. He is there within, or like the Christ, at the door, and the great resources of power are there for our asking. This is why Paul could instruct the Ephesians to be filled with the Spirit. They were to be filled again and again, even to the point of intoxication, with what they already had!

If the promised Spirit is given to the believer at baptism rather than sometime afterwards, it is nonetheless true that the Spirit’s ministry to the believer is continual and will be as fulfilling as one will allow. The believer lives by the Spirit (Rom. 8:5), walks by the Spirit (Gal. 5:16), and is led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14). Moreover the believer is made to drink of that one Holy Spirit (l Cor. 12:13). All this yields a harvest in his life of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. These are the fruit of the Spirit, which necessarily follow the Spirit-filled and Spirit-controlled life.

Then there are certain gifts of the Spirit, which are to be distinguished from the fruit. Every believer will have the fruit, if he allows the Spirit to minister through him, while the gifts are bestowed more sparingly. The gifts are listed in 1 Pet. 4:1 0, Rom. 12:6-8, and 1 Cor. 12:4-11. These are charismata, special gifts of the Spirit, and these passages indicate that each saint will have at least one of these gifts. Each saint will, of course, have all of the Spirit’s fruit.

This essay, therefore, has no quarrel with the idea that a gift like tongues or the discernment of spirits or of administration might come along afterwards. If the Spirit dwelling within my brother decides that he needs the gift of tongues and so bestows the gift, I will rejoice that the Guest within has so blessed my brother. But why call this “the baptism”? The phrase “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” is after all not in the Bible. Or why refer to this as receiving the Holy Spirit. The scriptures make it clear that the disciple has the Spirit from the beginning, irrespective of what the Spirit may do for him during a lifetime.

And this notion that being Spirit-filled and speaking in tongues go together simply will not hold up in the light of scripture. Jesus was ultimately filled with the Spirit, but no tongue-speaking the best we can tell. The Ephesians were Spirit-filled, but nothing said about tongues. And it is noteworthy that even though Romans was written from Corinth where there were some who spoke in tongues and where it was something of an issue, the apostle writes at length about the Spirit and even lists the charismata (Spiritual gifts), but does not once refer to tongues in the entire epistle. And while the Corinthians were Spirit-filled all along (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19), only a minority had the gift of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10).

In our life in the Spirit the apostle seems to be telling us that the gifts (charismata) are strictly secondary to the fruit, especially the crowning fruit of love. And love is a fruit, not a gift. “Earnestly desire the higher gifts,” he says, which, by the way, do not include tongues, “but I will show you a more excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:31). Then he launches into his psalm of love.

In the light of all this it is folly to associate tongues with the receiving of the Holy Spirit. True, tongues and other such gifts have always been present, more or less, in the church’s history, but always with a very small minority. A study of the great heroes of the faith, from Polycarp to Wykcliffe or from Campbell to Lipscomb, will turn up almost no tongue-speakers. But these men did have the Spirit and rejoiced in his indwelling.

Well, my case is stated. In closing I might acknowledge two references that would seem to militate against my thesis. Like old Walter Scott, I have placed the reception of the Holy Spirit immediately following baptism or at the time of baptism, but Cornelius and his household received the Spirit before baptism. I can admit this difficulty better than I can answer it. But my position is not so arbitrary that it cannot yield to this exceptional case. For some reason, perhaps to dramatize the entrance of the Gentiles into the faith, the Spirit was given to Cornelius perhaps even before he believed, and this was accompanied by tongues, which convinced the Jews present that God was no respecter of persons. But even here the experience was in connection with faith and obedience, Peter going on to insist that the Spirit-filled believers be baptized (Acts 10:47-48). This is certainly not a case of the Spirit coming along afterwards.

The other is the case of the Samaritans in Acts 8, who believed and were baptized, but who, indeed, received the Holy Spirit afterwards! The record reveals that Peter and John went to Samaria once they heard that the people had received the word of God, “who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

McGarvey in his Commentary on Acts gives an explanation that has been extensively accepted by our people, which is that the apostles’ mission was to bestow an extraordinary measure of the Spirit, which only an apostle could bestow. McGarvey strongly contends that the Samaritans had received the common gift of the Spirit when they obeyed the gospel, as Acts 2:38 promises, but that it took an apostle to give what he calls “the miraculous gift of the Spirit,” for if Philip, who was not an apostle could have done so, he would have. So, according to this, the Samaritans had received the Spirit all right, but not the miraculous gift of the Spirit!

As much as I respect McGarvey, I must say that this is indeed risky. First, the claim that believers received the Holy Spirit (miraculous or otherwise) only by the laying on of an apostle’s hand simply will not hold up. Cornelius received the Spirit apart from apostolic hands. The apostle Peter was there, but he not only did not have his hands extended in apostolic benediction, but he was surprised by what happened. Ananias was no apostle, but he laid hands on Saul, who received the Holy Spirit.

Second, McGarvey says the Samaritans did receive the Holy Spirit while Luke says they did not. Peter and John came “that they might receive the Holy Spirit.” The doctor says plainly “It had not fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized.” But McGarvey says they received the Spirit when they were baptized. They had to, he insists, for that was the promise to all who obeyed the gospel. So it had to be some extraordinary gift of the Spirit that the apostles bestowed. Unfortunately Luke makes no such distinction between ordinary or extraordinary. There is no implication here of any miraculous gift of the Spirit, whatever that may be made to mean. There is no mention of tongue-speaking or any kind of miraculous demonstration once the Spirit was given. Either they received the Spirit when they were baptized or they did not. The Bible says they did not.

My opinion is that there was something wrong in the conversion of the Samaritans. If they did not receive the Spirit when they turned to the Lord, then something must have been wrong with their turning. The context makes it clear that there was something wrong with Simon’s conversion, who wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit. We certainly cannot conclude that the apostles had to scamper around all over the country laying their hands on folk so they could receive the Spirit. Since Pentecost new believers had been receiving the Spirit without the apostles around, such as the Eunuch in this same chapter. Then why did Peter and John go to Samaria? Because they were especially needed. Something had gone wrong. A good case is made for this view in A. A. Hoekema’s Holy Spirit Baptism, if you wish to pursue it further.

A thesis does not fall because of an admitted difficulty. Whatever we say of the Samaritans, it is still generally the case that the Spirit did not come along afterwards, but when believers obeyed the gospel. If the case of the Samaritans leads folk to conclude that there was something amiss in their conversion and that they have all along been bereft of the Spirit and on that basis seek the Spirit’s presence, I certainly would not discourage them. Yet I would not advise rebaptism, just as Peter and John did not rebaptize those Samaritans, even though they were void of the Spirit. Paul did rebaptize those in Acts 19 because they had not received the Spirit, but they had experienced John’s baptism instead of Jesus’ baptism. Incidentally, Paul’s question to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?,” further strengthens my thesis that the Spirit is not some “second blessing” that comes afterwards. It is obvious that he expected people to receive the Holy Spirit upon becoming Christians. —the Editor