I. Introduction
Today there is a controversy over the concept of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a controversy associated with the Pentecostal movement. Pentecostals teach that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is generally an experience that a believer passes through subsequent to conversion, and that it is related to speaking in tongues; others do not agree with them.
In this paper I will attempt to explain as carefully as possible the two positions. I leave aside the important question of whether speaking in tongues is a gift only for the apostolic age, or for this age also.
II. The Pentecostal view
The “Pentecostal view” is held, by and large, not only by the Pentecostal denominations but by most Christians who are associated with the charismatic movement, a movement putting emphasis on gifts of the Spirit and speaking in tongues in particular.
A. The Work of the Holy Spirit
According to the Pentecostal view, most churches today lack the real working of the Holy Spirit. The churches are weak, the Christians are almost dead. because the Holy Spirit is left out. The Holy Spirit, after all, can be grieved (Eph. 4:30). By contrast. with the Holy Spirit at work in the lives of Christians. they will have the power (II Tim. 1:7), the love (Gal. 5:22–23). and the reality (II Cor. 3:18) which they seek. Pentecostals are very mindful of this broad subject of the work of the Spirit in believers. and for this emphasis the whole church can only be grateful. However. the great majority of Pentecostals believe that the Holy Spirit becomes fully and most powerfully active in a believer only when he has been “baptized with the Holy Spirit” in an experience after conversion. This experience is accompanied by the “sign” of speaking in tongues.
Let us see how they support this doctrine from Scripture. If, so it is reasoned, we are to find the answer to how to regain the lost power of the church. we will do well to follow the pattern of the book of Acts. The disciples were men of power and bold witness after the Day of Pentecost, whereas they had hid behind closed doors before (John 20:19, 26 vs. Acts 4:13). The difference was in the coming of the Holy Spirit. The disciples were Christians. i.e. believers in Jesus Christ, before Pentecost, for they had seen the risen Lord. But they were in the same position as most Christians today—without power. The remedy was for them to be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) after their conversion. So too today. Disciples “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon” them—power to be witnesses (Acts 1:8, 4:33).
B. The Place of the Miraculous
According to the Pentecostal, this witness is powerful not only because of the boldness of speech of the witnesses (Acts 4:13, 31) and the movement of the Spirit in the hearts of the hearers (Acts 2:37). but because of the “signs accompanying (Mark 16:17). particularly miraculous healing. The New Testament writers do appeal to the confirmatory evidence of signs performed by ministers of the gospel:
…while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will. –Heb. 2:4.
The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience. with signs and wonders and mighty works. –II Cor. 12:12.
…by the power of signs and wonders. by the power of the Holy Spirit. so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. –Rom. 15:19.
The signs authenticated the apostleship of the workers. Furthermore, in Acts there are several examples of hearers moved or arrested by the miraculous signs, and the subsequent use of these opportunities by the apostles. We have the cases of the speaking in tongues at Pentecost (Acts 2:6–21), the healing of the lame man by Peter and John (Acts 3:9–13 . Philip’s miracles in Samaria (Acts 8:5–8:13, 18–19), Paul’s blinding of Elymas (Acts 13:9–12), miracles at lconium (Acts 14:3). Lystra (Acts 4:8–11, 15–18). and Ephesus (Acts 19:11–17).
Here is n matter for any churchman to take seriously. Has Cod indeed ceased for all time to give, e.g., gifts of healing to His church? Or are the Pentecostals right in criticizing the almost total lack of miraculous signs in the denominations? This may well be cause for repentance and humility among other churches, all the more because Pentecostals are not only teaching that miracles should be a part of the church’s ministry, but demonstrating it.
C. The difference that the baptism of the Holy Spirit makes
Let us return to the main argument. The Pentecostal position is that, as the twelve disciples had to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a post-conversion experience in order to be empowered for service, so must Christians today. In their zeal some Pentecostals emphasize the importance of this post-conversion experience so much that the outsider may receive the impression that the Holy Spirit is just not at work at all among non-charismatic Christians. Actually, according to Scripture the Holy Spirit is at work in every Christian believer; “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. 12:3), and “anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). The Spirit is at work in regeneration, since every believer is “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5), and whatever fruits are manifest in a believer’s life are the work of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
What, then, is the “extra” which a Pentecostal considers the result of a second experience? For one thing, the Spirit-filled believer has power for service and witness. However, it must be admitted that one unacquainted with the Holy Spirit may have a certain power, e.g. Apollos’ “bold speaking” at Ephesus, “though he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25–26). The difference is rather one of full freedom and effectiveness in the Lord’s service. It is my impression that many times the distinction is viewed as one between, on the one hand, the unconscious and subconscious work of the Spirit in every believer’s life, in a way independent of his conscious assent, and, on the other hand, a more conscious and willful direction of the Spirit in addition in those baptized with the Holy Spirit. In particular, only by a certain conscious submission to the Holy Spirit may one exercise the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (e.g., miracle-working, healing, exorcism, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues ); therefore these appear only among those who have been baptized with the Holy Spirit.
The difference can be put in other ways. Jesus, in promising the coming of the Spirit, said, “[the world] neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you”1 (John 14:17). “With you” and “in you” are emphatic. Jesus was speaking of the role of the Spirit in the disciples’ lives bef0re and after Pentecost. Pentecostals see this difference mirrored in the lives of believers today, before and after their personal Pentecost, when they are baptized with the Holy Spirit. The Protestant view, of which I will say more later, considers this difference in John 14:17 rather as a difference between the Old Testament and New Testament dispensations.
The Pentecostal may explain the difference between “with you” and “in you” in still another way. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ (I Cor. 12: 13) —this is conversion.2 Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) -this is the Pentecostal experience. The first baptism is in the work of regeneration, by which one is made new. For example, in ” Cor. 5:17 we find “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come”; and in Ephesians and Colossians, “You have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, …” (Col. 3:9–10). However, there remains a second baptism, where Jesus Christ baptizes us with, or in, the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”). We see this distinction in Acts 8:16 in the case of the Samaritans. “For it [the Holy Spirit] had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
This leads us to a consideration of the texts in Acts that are used in support of the position of the Pentecostals. Do we see instances of the baptism of the Holy Spirit taking place subsequent to conversion in the early chureh? The argument is, “Yes, we do.” Acts 8 is the first recorded case after Pentecost. The Samaritans were converted under Philip’s ministry, but received the Holy Spirit only when the Apostles had come to them and laid on hands. A second instance is in Acts 19. Apollos “had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). Apollos was a Christian, for he knew “the way of the Lord.” But, like most Christians today, he had been baptized with water at conversion—the baptism of John—without having received the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Priscilla and Aquila, the early-church equivalents of the Pentecostals, “took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18:26). They introduced him to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. This accounts for the peculiar condition of the disciples at Ephesus, where Apollos had preached. They too had been baptized “into John’s baptism” (Acts 19:3), and did not have the Holy Spirit. So they received the Holy Spirit at the hands of Paul, subsequent to their conversion under Apollos.
D. Speaking in tongues
So far I have left to one side the question of the relation of speaking in tongues to the baptism with the Holy Spirit, However, the question is really not separate in the minds of Pentecostals. They see speaking in tongues as the natural accompaniment of the presence of the Holy Spirit in a body of believers, and hence the lack of tongue-speaking in other denominations is more or less conclusive evidence that these people lack the Holy Spirit in power. Scripturally, this attitude is based on the correlation in Acts between the descent of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues; experientially, it is based on the evidence of churches around them—relative lifelessness in all the churches where there is no speaking in tongues, life in those that speak in tongues.3
Within the Pentecostal church there are at least two major opinions about the relation between speaking in tongues and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The majority of Pentecostals regard tongue-speaking as the physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit; others regard it as an evidence. For the latter group, tongue-speaking, though accompanying the baptism as a rule, may very well be absent.4
Another general opinion among Pentecostals is that the sign of tongues and the gift of tongues are different things; though once again there are some who argue strongly for the unity of the two.” Those who do distinguish explain the matter thus: “The speaking in tongues in this instance [the baptism with the Holy Spirit] is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (I Cor. 12:4-10, 28), but different in purpose and use.”6 The gift of tongues is for edifying the church in public worship (I Cor. 14:5); the sign of tongues, for confirming the presence of the Holy Spirit in the newly Spirit-baptized believer. The gift of tongues is exercised regularly in church, while the sign of tongues need occur only once, when the believer first receives the Spirit. However, a believer who receives the sign of tongues may continue to speak in tongues privately, for bis own edification (1 Cor. 14:4), and is generally encouraged to do so. Not everyone has the gift, but everyone should have the sign.
In any case, one may, in the ordinary course of events, expect speaking in tongues as the initial sign of baptism with the Holy Spirit. This Pentecostals infer from the examples: Pentecost (Acts 2:4), Samaria (Acts 8:17—speaking in tongues is inferred from the fact that Simon saw the effects of the Spirit), Caesarea (Acts 10:46), and Ephesus (Acts 19:16).
These are the main beliefs of Pentecostals that distinguish them from other denominations. Nevertheless, as Hoekema has pointed out (op. cit., p. 35–36) the baptism with the Holy Spirit, especially during the historical beginnings of the Pentecostal movement, was connected with the doctrine of instantaneous sanctification, still found in some Pentecostal churches.
1. The Greek is par’ humin menei, kai en humin estai. There is a textual difficulty at the crucial point, in that some manuscripts have “is in you” (en humin estin) instead of “will be in you.” If the original text had estin, the passage is not about the Pentecostal distinction at all. Still, the Pentecostal position as a whole does not really depend upon the reading, and “with you” vs. “in you” is still a convenient way to understand the distinction that the Pentecostals make.
2. I am aware that Pentecostals are divided on the interpretation of I Cor. 12:13. Does it apply to all Christians, or not? Some men, e.g., Harold Horton, (The Gifts of the Spirit, p. 39-41) go to considerable trouble to justify an interpretation which applies the verse only to Spirit-baptized Christians. The “all” of 1 Cor. 12:13 refers only to the Corinthians, those who had received the Holy Spirit, those who possessed spiritual gifts. It is they who are baptized by one Spirit. It is the “one” in I Cor. 12:13 that is emphasized, not “all.” Thus the text may not be taken to refer to all believers indiscriminately. So goes Horton’s argument.
However, in order to interpret I Cor. 12;13 in this restrictive sense, Mr. Horton himself admits that he must come to the passage with a doctrine of the baptism that he has derived from other sources, e.g., Acts. Moreover, this interpretation becomes involved in insuperable difficulties if it is carried through consistently. The crucial question is “Are other believers, not baptized with the Holy Spirit In the Pentecostal sense, in the body of Christ? If so how did they get there?” The Apostle’s point in 1 Cor. i2:13 is surely that baptism is the work of this Spirit. If some members of the body gain entrance by another way, the whole figure of the unified body (I Cor. 12:14ff), unified by the Spirit, collapses. The point truly is that it is one Spirit baptizing us, and no one is in the body by any other means. The logical conclusion must be that non-Pentecostal believers are not in the body of Christ, which is the church (Col. 1:18)! Now, clearly, one cannot stop without having excluded these non-Pentecostal believers from every one of the blessings of salvation (e.g., cf. Eph. 1:22–23, 3:6,10, 16). And how does one deal with Eph. 2:13–21, which clearly indicates that the Gentiles are in Christ’s body in virtue of Christ’s death on the cross? There is no indication in Eph. 2 of a further need for Spirit-baptism, as a thing distinct from Christ’s work. Thus this interpretation cannot, I believe, be carried through to all of Scripture.
3. Of course, not everyone sees the contrast in such black-and-white terms. However, some Pentecostals see the contrast very clearly (from their own point of view) and consider it as weighty evidence for their doctrine. Their individual attitudes depend, I suspect, a good deal on what their experience with different churches has been.
4. Anthony A. Hoekema, What About Tongue-Speaking, p. 37.
5. Cf. T. J. McCrossan, Speaking with Other Tongues – Sign or Gift – Which?
6. Hoekema, p . 38, quoted from…In the Last Days. p.31.
Mr. Vern S. Poythress is a PhD candidate at Harvard University. A member of the Baptist Church, he was converted to the Reformed faith through reading Calvin’s Institutes. In this series of articles, he presents the baptism of the Holy Spirit first from the Pentecostal position, then from the Reformed position, and finally he gives cognet reasons from Scripture why the Reformed position is to be preferred.
Today there is a controversy over the concept of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a controversy associated with the Pentecostal movement. Pentecostals teach that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is generally an experience that a believer passes through subsequent to conversion, and that it is related to speaking in tongues; others do not agree with them.
In this paper I will attempt to explain as carefully as possible the two positions. I leave aside the important question of whether speaking in tongues is a gift only for the apostolic age, or for this age also.
II. The Pentecostal view
The “Pentecostal view” is held, by and large, not only by the Pentecostal denominations but by most Christians who are associated with the charismatic movement, a movement putting emphasis on gifts of the Spirit and speaking in tongues in particular.
A. The Work of the Holy Spirit
According to the Pentecostal view, most churches today lack the real working of the Holy Spirit. The churches are weak, the Christians are almost dead. because the Holy Spirit is left out. The Holy Spirit, after all, can be grieved (Eph. 4:30). By contrast. with the Holy Spirit at work in the lives of Christians. they will have the power (II Tim. 1:7), the love (Gal. 5:22–23). and the reality (II Cor. 3:18) which they seek. Pentecostals are very mindful of this broad subject of the work of the Spirit in believers. and for this emphasis the whole church can only be grateful. However. the great majority of Pentecostals believe that the Holy Spirit becomes fully and most powerfully active in a believer only when he has been “baptized with the Holy Spirit” in an experience after conversion. This experience is accompanied by the “sign” of speaking in tongues.
Let us see how they support this doctrine from Scripture. If, so it is reasoned, we are to find the answer to how to regain the lost power of the church. we will do well to follow the pattern of the book of Acts. The disciples were men of power and bold witness after the Day of Pentecost, whereas they had hid behind closed doors before (John 20:19, 26 vs. Acts 4:13). The difference was in the coming of the Holy Spirit. The disciples were Christians. i.e. believers in Jesus Christ, before Pentecost, for they had seen the risen Lord. But they were in the same position as most Christians today—without power. The remedy was for them to be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) after their conversion. So too today. Disciples “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon” them—power to be witnesses (Acts 1:8, 4:33).
B. The Place of the Miraculous
According to the Pentecostal, this witness is powerful not only because of the boldness of speech of the witnesses (Acts 4:13, 31) and the movement of the Spirit in the hearts of the hearers (Acts 2:37). but because of the “signs accompanying (Mark 16:17). particularly miraculous healing. The New Testament writers do appeal to the confirmatory evidence of signs performed by ministers of the gospel:
…while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will. –Heb. 2:4.
The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience. with signs and wonders and mighty works. –II Cor. 12:12.
…by the power of signs and wonders. by the power of the Holy Spirit. so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. –Rom. 15:19.
The signs authenticated the apostleship of the workers. Furthermore, in Acts there are several examples of hearers moved or arrested by the miraculous signs, and the subsequent use of these opportunities by the apostles. We have the cases of the speaking in tongues at Pentecost (Acts 2:6–21), the healing of the lame man by Peter and John (Acts 3:9–13 . Philip’s miracles in Samaria (Acts 8:5–8:13, 18–19), Paul’s blinding of Elymas (Acts 13:9–12), miracles at lconium (Acts 14:3). Lystra (Acts 4:8–11, 15–18). and Ephesus (Acts 19:11–17).
Here is n matter for any churchman to take seriously. Has Cod indeed ceased for all time to give, e.g., gifts of healing to His church? Or are the Pentecostals right in criticizing the almost total lack of miraculous signs in the denominations? This may well be cause for repentance and humility among other churches, all the more because Pentecostals are not only teaching that miracles should be a part of the church’s ministry, but demonstrating it.
C. The difference that the baptism of the Holy Spirit makes
Let us return to the main argument. The Pentecostal position is that, as the twelve disciples had to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a post-conversion experience in order to be empowered for service, so must Christians today. In their zeal some Pentecostals emphasize the importance of this post-conversion experience so much that the outsider may receive the impression that the Holy Spirit is just not at work at all among non-charismatic Christians. Actually, according to Scripture the Holy Spirit is at work in every Christian believer; “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. 12:3), and “anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). The Spirit is at work in regeneration, since every believer is “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5), and whatever fruits are manifest in a believer’s life are the work of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
What, then, is the “extra” which a Pentecostal considers the result of a second experience? For one thing, the Spirit-filled believer has power for service and witness. However, it must be admitted that one unacquainted with the Holy Spirit may have a certain power, e.g. Apollos’ “bold speaking” at Ephesus, “though he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25–26). The difference is rather one of full freedom and effectiveness in the Lord’s service. It is my impression that many times the distinction is viewed as one between, on the one hand, the unconscious and subconscious work of the Spirit in every believer’s life, in a way independent of his conscious assent, and, on the other hand, a more conscious and willful direction of the Spirit in addition in those baptized with the Holy Spirit. In particular, only by a certain conscious submission to the Holy Spirit may one exercise the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (e.g., miracle-working, healing, exorcism, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues ); therefore these appear only among those who have been baptized with the Holy Spirit.
The difference can be put in other ways. Jesus, in promising the coming of the Spirit, said, “[the world] neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you”1 (John 14:17). “With you” and “in you” are emphatic. Jesus was speaking of the role of the Spirit in the disciples’ lives bef0re and after Pentecost. Pentecostals see this difference mirrored in the lives of believers today, before and after their personal Pentecost, when they are baptized with the Holy Spirit. The Protestant view, of which I will say more later, considers this difference in John 14:17 rather as a difference between the Old Testament and New Testament dispensations.
The Pentecostal may explain the difference between “with you” and “in you” in still another way. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ (I Cor. 12: 13) —this is conversion.2 Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) -this is the Pentecostal experience. The first baptism is in the work of regeneration, by which one is made new. For example, in ” Cor. 5:17 we find “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come”; and in Ephesians and Colossians, “You have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, …” (Col. 3:9–10). However, there remains a second baptism, where Jesus Christ baptizes us with, or in, the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”). We see this distinction in Acts 8:16 in the case of the Samaritans. “For it [the Holy Spirit] had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
This leads us to a consideration of the texts in Acts that are used in support of the position of the Pentecostals. Do we see instances of the baptism of the Holy Spirit taking place subsequent to conversion in the early chureh? The argument is, “Yes, we do.” Acts 8 is the first recorded case after Pentecost. The Samaritans were converted under Philip’s ministry, but received the Holy Spirit only when the Apostles had come to them and laid on hands. A second instance is in Acts 19. Apollos “had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). Apollos was a Christian, for he knew “the way of the Lord.” But, like most Christians today, he had been baptized with water at conversion—the baptism of John—without having received the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Priscilla and Aquila, the early-church equivalents of the Pentecostals, “took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18:26). They introduced him to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. This accounts for the peculiar condition of the disciples at Ephesus, where Apollos had preached. They too had been baptized “into John’s baptism” (Acts 19:3), and did not have the Holy Spirit. So they received the Holy Spirit at the hands of Paul, subsequent to their conversion under Apollos.
D. Speaking in tongues
So far I have left to one side the question of the relation of speaking in tongues to the baptism with the Holy Spirit, However, the question is really not separate in the minds of Pentecostals. They see speaking in tongues as the natural accompaniment of the presence of the Holy Spirit in a body of believers, and hence the lack of tongue-speaking in other denominations is more or less conclusive evidence that these people lack the Holy Spirit in power. Scripturally, this attitude is based on the correlation in Acts between the descent of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues; experientially, it is based on the evidence of churches around them—relative lifelessness in all the churches where there is no speaking in tongues, life in those that speak in tongues.3
Within the Pentecostal church there are at least two major opinions about the relation between speaking in tongues and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The majority of Pentecostals regard tongue-speaking as the physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit; others regard it as an evidence. For the latter group, tongue-speaking, though accompanying the baptism as a rule, may very well be absent.4
Another general opinion among Pentecostals is that the sign of tongues and the gift of tongues are different things; though once again there are some who argue strongly for the unity of the two.” Those who do distinguish explain the matter thus: “The speaking in tongues in this instance [the baptism with the Holy Spirit] is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (I Cor. 12:4-10, 28), but different in purpose and use.”6 The gift of tongues is for edifying the church in public worship (I Cor. 14:5); the sign of tongues, for confirming the presence of the Holy Spirit in the newly Spirit-baptized believer. The gift of tongues is exercised regularly in church, while the sign of tongues need occur only once, when the believer first receives the Spirit. However, a believer who receives the sign of tongues may continue to speak in tongues privately, for bis own edification (1 Cor. 14:4), and is generally encouraged to do so. Not everyone has the gift, but everyone should have the sign.
In any case, one may, in the ordinary course of events, expect speaking in tongues as the initial sign of baptism with the Holy Spirit. This Pentecostals infer from the examples: Pentecost (Acts 2:4), Samaria (Acts 8:17—speaking in tongues is inferred from the fact that Simon saw the effects of the Spirit), Caesarea (Acts 10:46), and Ephesus (Acts 19:16).
These are the main beliefs of Pentecostals that distinguish them from other denominations. Nevertheless, as Hoekema has pointed out (op. cit., p. 35–36) the baptism with the Holy Spirit, especially during the historical beginnings of the Pentecostal movement, was connected with the doctrine of instantaneous sanctification, still found in some Pentecostal churches.
1. The Greek is par’ humin menei, kai en humin estai. There is a textual difficulty at the crucial point, in that some manuscripts have “is in you” (en humin estin) instead of “will be in you.” If the original text had estin, the passage is not about the Pentecostal distinction at all. Still, the Pentecostal position as a whole does not really depend upon the reading, and “with you” vs. “in you” is still a convenient way to understand the distinction that the Pentecostals make.
2. I am aware that Pentecostals are divided on the interpretation of I Cor. 12:13. Does it apply to all Christians, or not? Some men, e.g., Harold Horton, (The Gifts of the Spirit, p. 39-41) go to considerable trouble to justify an interpretation which applies the verse only to Spirit-baptized Christians. The “all” of 1 Cor. 12:13 refers only to the Corinthians, those who had received the Holy Spirit, those who possessed spiritual gifts. It is they who are baptized by one Spirit. It is the “one” in I Cor. 12:13 that is emphasized, not “all.” Thus the text may not be taken to refer to all believers indiscriminately. So goes Horton’s argument.
However, in order to interpret I Cor. 12;13 in this restrictive sense, Mr. Horton himself admits that he must come to the passage with a doctrine of the baptism that he has derived from other sources, e.g., Acts. Moreover, this interpretation becomes involved in insuperable difficulties if it is carried through consistently. The crucial question is “Are other believers, not baptized with the Holy Spirit In the Pentecostal sense, in the body of Christ? If so how did they get there?” The Apostle’s point in 1 Cor. i2:13 is surely that baptism is the work of this Spirit. If some members of the body gain entrance by another way, the whole figure of the unified body (I Cor. 12:14ff), unified by the Spirit, collapses. The point truly is that it is one Spirit baptizing us, and no one is in the body by any other means. The logical conclusion must be that non-Pentecostal believers are not in the body of Christ, which is the church (Col. 1:18)! Now, clearly, one cannot stop without having excluded these non-Pentecostal believers from every one of the blessings of salvation (e.g., cf. Eph. 1:22–23, 3:6,10, 16). And how does one deal with Eph. 2:13–21, which clearly indicates that the Gentiles are in Christ’s body in virtue of Christ’s death on the cross? There is no indication in Eph. 2 of a further need for Spirit-baptism, as a thing distinct from Christ’s work. Thus this interpretation cannot, I believe, be carried through to all of Scripture.
3. Of course, not everyone sees the contrast in such black-and-white terms. However, some Pentecostals see the contrast very clearly (from their own point of view) and consider it as weighty evidence for their doctrine. Their individual attitudes depend, I suspect, a good deal on what their experience with different churches has been.
4. Anthony A. Hoekema, What About Tongue-Speaking, p. 37.
5. Cf. T. J. McCrossan, Speaking with Other Tongues – Sign or Gift – Which?
6. Hoekema, p . 38, quoted from…In the Last Days. p.31.
Mr. Vern S. Poythress is a PhD candidate at Harvard University. A member of the Baptist Church, he was converted to the Reformed faith through reading Calvin’s Institutes. In this series of articles, he presents the baptism of the Holy Spirit first from the Pentecostal position, then from the Reformed position, and finally he gives cognet reasons from Scripture why the Reformed position is to be preferred.