What is the experience known as 'Receiving the Holy Spirit'?

[GKC_fan]

footwasher I didn't say that the Spirit was never mentioned or didn't exist or didn't do anything in the OT times. Of course it was and did. I said that―as far as we can tell, based on what the Bible itself says in both the OT and NT―the baptism of the Holy Spirit didn't exist then like it does now. The Bible itself states this:

Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. John 7:39

There are of course OT verses that say the Spirit "came on" someone, but it's always for a temporary time, a special circumstance or need. John 7:39 makes it very clear that our New Covenant experience with the Holy Spirit is significantly different from anything previous. And the outpouring at Pentecost proves this.

Pentecost is a MASSIVE event and a huge new revelation. It was the 2nd Mt. Sinai and God's reversal of his separation of languages at Babel.

But your checklist, brother, completely ignores this world-changing event. How do you justify that?

Your checklist also ignores all the crystal-clear and specific statements of Jesus and the apostles about Pentecost and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Not to mention that 50% of the proof-texts in your list―Lk 11:20 and Jn 9:1-5―are talking about Jesus, not the disciples. And Jesus after He had already received the baptism of the Spirit. That's a rather huge error in your proof, brother. Wouldn't you agree?

[footwasher]

footwasher I didn't say that the Spirit was never mentioned or didn't exist or didn't do anything in the OT times. Of course it was and did. I said that―as far as we can tell, based on what the Bible itself says in both the OT and NT―the baptism of the Holy Spirit didn't exist then like it does now. The Bible itself states this:

Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. John 7:39

There are of course OT verses that say the Spirit "came on" someone, but it's always for a temporary time, a special circumstance or need. John 7:39 makes it very clear that our New Covenant experience with the Holy Spirit is significantly different from anything previous. And the outpouring at Pentecost proves this.

Pentecost is a MASSIVE event and a huge new revelation. It was the 2nd Mt. Sinai and God's reversal of his separation of languages at Babel.

But your checklist, brother, completely ignores this world-changing event. How do you justify that?

Your checklist also ignores all the crystal-clear and specific statements of Jesus and the apostles about Pentecost and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Not to mention that 50% of the proof-texts in your list―Lk 11:20 and Jn 9:1-5―are talking about Jesus, not the disciples. And Jesus after He had already received the baptism of the Spirit. That's a rather huge error in your proof, brother. Wouldn't you agree?

Why did God create problems for Abraham, Caleb and Jesus?

[Esther]

You are right that NT sets a pattern, but more importantly, all Scripture sets that pattern, because first, we have continuity from the OT to the NT, and second, multiple instances of that pattern means confirmation of its meaning.



Not really. When we get born again, it is a birth originated from changing, having had a different mindset, meta noia, because of responding correctly to the faith strengthening ministry of the Holy Spirit, in creating problems, crosses, and being rescued by God, resurrection. We see God creating problems for Abraham, Israel and Jesus, when they believe the Gospel, that the world is not their real home, but a different Land/Country/Kingdom is. Their belief is seen in coming out of their worldly homes/Egypt. The Holy Spirit leads them into the wilderness, and creates problems like hunger and thirst, and then rescues them. See what happens when they are exposed to suffering and rescue:

Heb 5
8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered.

When tested, they showed they had learnt. Unlike Israel's response in the wilderness, and in Chorazin and Bethsaida (Google 'they forgot God's great rescues', if you don't believe me):

Ps 78
11They forgot what he had done,
the wonders he had shown them.
12He did miracles in the sight of their ancestors
in the land of Egypt, in the region of Zoan.
13He divided the sea and led them through;
...

I repeat, how we are born again, and how we are not:

Heb 4
For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.

Heb 6
7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

It's important to get this right, do due diligence, because if we do not hear property, that the Kingdom is near, and we can enter by passing a test to see if we are born again, changed by receiving and believing this good news, we run the risk of not being saved. Did you receive the Holy Spirit. No. Because you heard a different Gospel. You filled up the wrong application form.



Again, not really. We get born again by seeing different examples of being put into danger and being rescued. This increases , or should increase our faith in God's ability and willingness to always rescue. Only Abraham, Caleb and Jesus passed the test to see if they had had a different spirit:

Numbers 14
20“I have pardoned them as you requested,” the LORD replied. 21“Yet as surely as I live and as surely as the whole earth is filled with the glory of the LORD, 22not one of the men who have seen My glory and the signs I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness—yet have tested Me and disobeyed Me these ten times— 23not one will ever see the land that I swore to give their fathers. None of those who have treated Me with contempt will see it.

24But because My servant Caleb has a different spirit and has followed Me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he has entered, and his descendants will inherit it.
…

Of course, you obviously haven't been tested, because you haven't received the real offer.



I repeat, we are baptised into the ministry of Moses/Christ, demonstration of cross and resurrection in the wilderness, when we believe we have to come out of Egypt, because God can deliver us into the Kingdom. We show this belief by remembering the rescues God performs in the Holy Spirit experience. Even the believers in Ephesus in Acts 19 were given a concentrated dose of seeing rescue, and could be edified, because tongues edify the speaker.



You need to follow instructions, no matter how complicated they are, if you want to use that new blender you bought for your kitchen. Rest is the desired result to be reached, the destination, the harbour the ship was meant to berth at, the runway the plane was supposed to land on. The burden is light, compared to what God's people had to endure, oppressed by the Slavemaster, Law…

Matthew 11:28 says it best footwasher. Note how the Amplified Bible makes it so clear that religious rituals that provide no peace are a burden. Jesus came to set the captives free. We cannot put new wine into old wine skins. I see that as you cannot mix the OT and the law with the NT and grace.

John 1:17: ¹⁷ For the Law was given through Moses, but grace [the unearned, undeserved favor of God] and truth came through Jesus Christ.

²⁸ “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavily burdened [by religious rituals that provide no peace], and I will give you rest [refreshing your souls with salvation]. ²⁹ Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me [following Me as My disciple], for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest (renewal, blessed quiet) for your souls. ³⁰ For My yoke is easy [to bear] and My burden is light.”

[GKC_fan]

Why did God create problems for Abraham, Caleb and Jesus?

That's easy; for the same multitude of reasons he does for everyone else.

But that's completely off-topic.

[GKC_fan]

Not to mention that 50% of the proof-texts in your list―Lk 11:20 and Jn 9:1-5―are talking about Jesus, not the disciples. And Jesus after He had already received the baptism of the Spirit. That's a rather huge error in your proof, brother. Wouldn't you agree?

But my question is completely on-topic.

[tabibito]

Acts 11:15-17 - The Holy Spirit falling on people = being baptised into the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:44-47 - The Holy Spirit falling on people; also The Holy Spirit being poured out on people = receiving the Holy Spirit

Just different terms used to describe the same event.

Empowerment is a result of being baptised into the Holy Spirit

[footwasher]

That's easy; for the same multitude of reasons he does for everyone else.

But that's completely off-topic.

But the record shows that Jesus learned obedience from suffering!

Jesus believes the Kingdom of God is near and can be entered by having strong faith, by changing from uncertain followers to courageous front runner, by having a different spirit, by being born again.

This belief results in receiving the Holy Spirit, synecdoche for being show great rescues from problems, as Abraham and Israel experienced, and also the believers in Ephesus in Acts 19 (tongues edify, build up faith in the speaker!).

However, Israel witnessed the powers of the Age to Come, but still would not increase her faith! Only Caleb changed from a fearful follower to a courageous leader! The parallel is unmistakable!

When tested, he obeyed the command to face the Canaanites, unlike the others:

1 Cor 10
1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Baptized into Moses! Received the faith strengthening ministry of the Holy Spirit under the auspices of Moses! Just as we are baptised into Christ, when we believe the Kingdom is near, demonstrating belief by coming out of the world/Egypt.

You haven't seen suffering and rescue, cross and resurrection? That's because you heard another Gospel, which never required you to respond by leaving your father's house, Egypt, the world!

Matt 2
14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

1 Peter 4
12Dear friends, don’t be surprised at the fiery trials you are going through, as if something strange were happening to you.

[GKC_fan]

Jesus believes the Kingdom of God is near and can be entered by having strong faith, by changing from uncertain followers to courageous front runner, by having a different spirit, by being born again.

This belief results in receiving the Holy Spirit...

My friend, this is called grabbing some unrelated facts, combining them, and claiming that they are a sound argument. It's also ignoring plain statements about a subject, from known authorities, in favor of your own theory.

But let's test your theory:

1) Jesus believes that He is the Messiah and he can achieve success by really believing this, by changing from a normal human mindset to Son-of-God mindset, by having a different attitude, by boldly and fearlessly telling everyone, every single day, that He is in fact the Messiah.

This belief results in Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit.

No: it was a sovereign act of the Father, as a result of Jesus's obedience in being baptized. Your logic would have gotten him arrested and killed very quickly.


2) Peter believes that the Kingdom of God is near and can be entered by having strong faith, by changing from an uncertain follower to courageous front runner, by having a different spirit, by stepping out of the boat onto the water.

This belief results in Peter receiving the Holy Spirit.

No: he didn't receive the Holy Spirit then. He just got dunked. ;->


3) Judas believes that the Kingdom of God is near and can be entered by having strong faith, by changing from an uncertain follower to courageous front runner, by having a different spirit, by taking decisive action to help Jesus get his act together and get the show on the road, so he tells the religious leaders where they can find Jesus.

This belief results in Judas receiving the Holy Spirit.

Not exactly.

[footwasher]

My friend, this is called grabbing some unrelated facts, combining them, and claiming that they are a sound argument. It's also ignoring plain statements about a subject, from known authorities, in favor of your own theory.

But let's test your theory:

1) Jesus believes that He is the Messiah and he can achieve success by really believing this, by changing from a normal human mindset to Son-of-God mindset, by having a different attitude, by boldly and fearlessly telling everyone, every single day, that He is in fact the Messiah.

This belief results in Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit.

No: it was a sovereign act of the Father, as a result of Jesus's obedience in being baptized. Your logic would have gotten him arrested and killed very quickly.

How convenient, because that is exactly what happened! It got him in a position where he would have got arrested and killed very quickly, and he had to run away, in order to survive to continue to pick up crosses everyday, until he decided to pick up the eponymous cross at Calvary, to show that God could rescue even from death!

2) Peter believes that the Kingdom of God is near and can be entered by having strong faith, by changing from an uncertain follower to courageous front runner, by having a different spirit, by stepping out of the boat onto the water.

This belief results in Peter receiving the Holy Spirit.

No: he didn't receive the Holy Spirit then. He just got dunked. ;->

Nice try, but place the events at the correct place, and you will find they match.

Peter was baptised into Christ when he left his fishing nets.

He saw suffering and rescue, even from drowning.

He got a concentrated dose of revelation of suffering and rescue on Pentecost, through the indwelling by the Holy Spirit.

He changed from a fearful follower to a courageous leader!

3) Judas believes that the Kingdom of God is near and can be entered by having strong faith, by changing from an uncertain follower to courageous front runner, by having a different spirit, by taking decisive action to help Jesus get his act together and get the show on the road, so he tells the religious leaders where they can find Jesus.

This belief results in Judas receiving the Holy Spirit.

Not exactly.

Excellent example of the negative outcome!

Judas was baptised into Christ when he left the world to follow Him.

He saw suffering and rescue, even saw Peter rescued from drowning.

When tested, his cowardice and greed overcame his experience of witnessing suffering and rescue, and he wanted to return to the world/Egypt, like Israel, like Ananias and Sapphira, and they all died without being allowed into the Land/Kingdom.

[GKC_fan]

How convenient, because that is exactly what happened!

Sorry, my friend, but it's not what happened. You are leaving out crucial facts that don't fit your theory, adding in new ones as needed, and mixing and matching as convenient.

Here's your recipe for receiving the Holy Spirit, from your OP:

D. People believe that God is able to bring them into that situation [i.e., their personal Promised Land], and immediately God gives them experiences that teach them He can carry them through any situation without harm. This is called receiving the Holy Spirit, drinking from the Holy Spirit.

With Peter, you are changing your requirements and recipe. Your OP says that he should have received the HS on the water, "immediately ...this is ...receiving the Holy Spirit," but now you say that he had to wait until Pentecost after all. ??

Judas had learned that God could rescue Jesus from the authorities, so he stepped out in bold faith to instigate the hoped-for Messianic War of Deliverance, depending on God's saving power. According to your theory he should have succeeded. But he didn't. Therefore, your theory is deficient or in error. It doesn't fit all the facts.

The problem is even more glaring when we look at the experience of Jesus.

The Bible is clear that Jesus received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before he had his huge test of faith. His huge test of faith was in the Wilderness. But He had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is the complete opposite of what your theory states, my friend.

So . . . your theory doesn't work in all situations where it should work, so it must be missing some key facts. At best, it's incomplete. Which isn't surprising, since it ignores so many key and plain statements of Scripture by experts in the subject, as I noted in an earlier post.

Which you yourself show, when you again switch and give the biblical order of cause and effect, which is the reverse of yours:

"[Peter] got a concentrated dose of revelation of suffering and rescue on Pentecost, through the indwelling by the Holy Spirit."

Once again, as with Jesus, this is the opposite order of your theory. Your theory says that Revelation of Rescue + Faith = the requirement for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But here you've reversed that―you now say that the already-indwelling Spirit gave Peter and the disciples the faith and boldness.

Exactly as the Bible and I say, my friend, but contrary to your theory. ;-)

My friend, I commend your efforts, and your realization that much of the standard evangelical narrative of the Holy Spirit is greatly flawed or lacking, and your desire to fix that. I totally agree with you there!

But your theory also has major flaws and holes, as I've shown. This is primarily because you are ignoring the plain statements of Scripture that speak directly to the topic. Which is always a really bad idea.

[NorrinRadd]

Ok, my turn to throw an M80 into the campfire.

WAD to those who like things simple, consistent, and straightforward, I don't believe terminology in Scripture is consistent enough to justify dogmatically saying, "'Baptism in the Spirit' is different from 'receiving the Spirit'" OR dogmatically saying "'Baptism in the Spirit' is exactly the same thing as 'receiving the Spirit.'"

---------------------------- Baptism in the Spirit -----------------

>> Matt. 3:11-12 -- Baptism in the Spirit is presented as a successor to and replacement for John's water baptism. The context suggests that being baptized in the Spirit is what will keep one from being burned up like chaff. There is no direct mention of "power" in the immediate context. There is also no mention of "power" when the Spirit descends on Jesus in v. 16. However, it is also true that Matthew does not record Jesus doing any preaching or healing until the next chapter, after the Spirit has come upon Him. Significantly, that chapter opens by mentioning Jesus being "led" by the Spirit.

>> Mark 1:8 -- Mark's account is like Matthew's, but with less detail. Again the immediate context is more about salvation than power, but then in the larger context Jesus begins His preaching and healing only after He received the Spirit. Typically for him, Mark uses more dramatic language in noting Jesus being "driven" by the Spirit.

>> Luke 3:16 -- Luke's passage is much like Matthew's, with similar detail. Again the context suggests that baptism in the Spirit prevents one from being consumed in fire. Again there is no mention of power. Again the Spirit comes on Jesus, still with no mention of power. Again the next chapter begins with the statement about Jesus bein "led" by the Spirit, but also includes the expression "full of" the Spirit -- terminology Luke favors. Luke 4:14 is the first direct association of "Spirit" and "power." Then in 4:18 He reads from (apparently) both Isa. 61 and 42 to announce and describe His ministry, and then goes on to demonstrate it.

>> John 1:25-36 -- As usual, John's account is much different from the Synoptists'. Still, the context suggests John is present baptism in the Spirit as a replacement for John's baptism in water, and the context of "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" strongly suggests baptism in the Spirit to be about salvation. However, as in the other cases, Jesus gives His first recorded demonstrations of supernatural ability (1:47-50; 2:6-9) only after He Himself had had the Spirit come upon Him (1:32).

>> Acts 1:5-8 -- Here Luke changes his emphasis compared to ch. 3 of his Gospel. There is no mention of the consuming fire. Instead, here being baptized in the Spirit is explicitly linked to power for preaching and other ministry (Luke 24:47-49). In the next chapter, the promise is fulfilled, and then as Luke recorded Jesus doing in ch. 4 of his Gospel, Peter cites a relevant "Spirit upon" passage, this time from Joel 2, to announce and characterize the ministry of the Church.

>> Acts 11:16 with Acts 10:47 -- Here Luke quoting Peter seems to regard "received the Holy Spirit" and "baptized in the Holy Spirit" as the same thing, and it's about the most muddled case possible. Whether it means regeneration (being "born again") or empowering for ministry, or both, it all happened at the same time, BEFORE Peter had even finished preaching.

>> 1 Cor. 12:13 -- Here Paul regards being "baptized in the Spirit" as that event which makes us members of the body of Christ, i.e. regeneration, and yet the rest of the next three chapters are all about the supernatural ministry abilities available by the Spirit.


---------------------- Receive the Spirit --------------

>> John 7:37-39 -- Pentecostals often regard this as referring to the empowering work of the Spirit, as opposed to the saving, regenerating work of the Spirit in John 4:10-14. That is probably wrong. As Keener points out in his notes in the IVP Bible Background Commentary, and as translations like the NET and CEB show, the verses can be punctuated differently, such that the "rivers of living water," referring to the Spirit, flow from Jesus, not believers. So both here and in ch. 4, believers imbibe the Spirit and gain eternal life. (Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13, where imbibing the Spirit is parallel to being baptized in the Spirit.)

>> John 20:22 -- This is clearly talking about regeneration, imparting life. It evokes Gen. 2:7, where God breathed into Adam. It probably also suggests Eze. 37, as well as chapter 3 from earlier in John's Gospel, which in turn called to mind Eze. 36 and 37. (John 3 mixed both the "water" and "wind" metaphors for the Spirit.) But the setting of this verse is John's version of the Great Commission, and as in Luke's books, the coming of the Spirit is the necessary preparation for "going" (or here in John, being "sent") with the ministry of forgiving sins.

>> Acts 2:33(?) -- Here the exact phrase "receive(d) the Spirit" does not occur. The phrase is "received the promise of the Spirit." It harks back to Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4, and is talking about the empowering event at Pentecost. In this case, Jesus was the one who "received the promise," but comparing to those other two passages, He received the promise in order to pass it on.

>> Acts 2:38(?) -- Here the exact phrase is "receive the GIFT OF the Holy Spirit." The context suggests the "gift" is the Spirit Himself, although I suppose conceivably it could mean "ability to speak in tongues and prophecy," or more broadly, "power." If it "gift of" does refer to the Spirit Himself, then this is equivalent to "receive the Spirit." In the immediate context, since it is directly associated with repentance and baptism, it seems to suggest regeneration. However, the next verse mentions the "promise," tying it to v. 33 and the other verses cited, and the overall context ties it to the empowering of the Spirit.

>> Acts 8:14-17 -- This is an interesting case. Samaria had "accepted the word of God" and "been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," but had yet to "receive" the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit had not yet "fallen on" any of them. This suggests that in this context, "receiving" the Spirit and having the Spirit "fall upon" are considered the same thing, that it normally happened almost or literally at the same time one was born again and baptized, and that there was normally some observable evidence that it had happened. Pentecostals would normally insist that "speaking in tongues" is always the observable evidence, but that is not specifically mentioned here.

>> Acts 10:47 -- This is another complex passage. The "poured out" language (10:45) looks back to 2:17, 18, 33. The "gift" language (10:45) looks back to 2:38. The "fell on" language (10:44) looks back to 8:16, and is picked up again in 11:15; and in that one, Peter links it to the events of Pentecost in Acts 2. In v. 47, Luke quoting Peter explicitly uses "received the Holy Spirit," and it clearly refers to the "gift" of the Spirit, that being the Spirit Himself, being "poured out" and "falling upon" the recipients, enabling and prompting them to begin "speaking in tongues." And it happened *before* they were baptized, and in fact before Peter had even finished preaching.

>> Acts 19:2 -- Another ambiguous passage. At Ephesus, Paul found (19:1) "disciples," a word normally, but not exclusively (cf. Luke 5:33), used for students of Jesus. At some point in their learning, they came to "believe" (v.2), which almost always refers to coming to saving faith in Christ. But they had not received Christian baptism, and had not received the Spirit. It is clear from the tone that both of these things were expected to take place at almost if not literally the same time as "belief." And it is clear that "receiving the Spirit" was expected to have some observable evidence. In v. 6, the "come upon" language occurs, using a somewhat different word from the one used in, e.g., 11:15. Then the recipients respond with tongues and prophecy.

>> Rom. 8:15 -- Here "receive(d) the Spirit" refers to that event which makes us children of God. No ambiguity.

>> 1 Cor. 2:12 -- Here "receive(d) the Spirit" refers that which distinguishes us from "the world." This again would seem to be similar to Rom. 8:15.

>> 2 Cor. 11:4 -- In context, the emphasis seems to be salvation/regeneration. But it is not necessarily clear.

>> Gal. 3:2-14 -- Much is packed in this passage. The first two verses suggest that "receiv(ing) the Spirit" is the very "beginning" of the Christian life, and that it occurs as a result of faith. (Collaterally, this seems to go against the Calvinist idea that "regeneration (by the Spirit) precedes faith.") It did not require obedient performance of any "works of the Law." Then Paul shows that, contrary to the Judaizers, it also does not require doing any "works of the Law" to continue and progress in our salvation. Then in v. 5, Paul links the Spirit with ongoing works of power among believers. Finally in v. 14, he uses the "promise" language that harks back to Luke's books.


>>>> Bottom line: The terms "receive the Spirit" and "baptize in the Spirit" are used flexibly, maybe even interchangeably. Different passages invite different terminology and emphasis. Often, within the span of a chapter or less, both aspects -- rebirth/initiation and empowering -- show up in regard to either term.

[tabibito]

Ok, my turn to throw an M80 into the campfire.

WAD to those who like things simple, consistent, and straightforward, I don't believe terminology in Scripture is consistent enough to justify dogmatically saying, "'Baptism in the Spirit' is different from 'receiving the Spirit'" OR dogmatically saying "'Baptism in the Spirit' is exactly the same thing as 'receiving the Spirit.'"

---------------------------- Baptism in the Spirit -----------------

>> Matt. 3:11-12 -- Baptism in the Spirit is presented as a successor to and replacement for John's water baptism. The context suggests that being baptized in the Spirit is what will keep one from being burned up like chaff. There is no direct mention of "power" in the immediate context. There is also no mention of "power" when the Spirit descends on Jesus in v. 16. However, it is also true that Matthew does not record Jesus doing any preaching or healing until the next chapter, after the Spirit has come upon Him. Significantly, that chapter opens by mentioning Jesus being "led" by the Spirit.

>> Mark 1:8 -- Mark's account is like Matthew's, but with less detail. Again the immediate context is more about salvation than power, but then in the larger context Jesus begins His preaching and healing only after He received the Spirit. Typically for him, Mark uses more dramatic language in noting Jesus being "driven" by the Spirit.

>> Luke 3:16 -- Luke's passage is much like Matthew's, with similar detail. Again the context suggests that baptism in the Spirit prevents one from being consumed in fire. Again there is no mention of power. Again the Spirit comes on Jesus, still with no mention of power. Again the next chapter begins with the statement about Jesus bein "led" by the Spirit, but also includes the expression "full of" the Spirit -- terminology Luke favors. Luke 4:14 is the first direct association of "Spirit" and "power." Then in 4:18 He reads from (apparently) both Isa. 61 and 42 to announce and describe His ministry, and then goes on to demonstrate it.

>> John 1:25-36 -- As usual, John's account is much different from the Synoptists'. Still, the context suggests John is present baptism in the Spirit as a replacement for John's baptism in water, and the context of "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" strongly suggests baptism in the Spirit to be about salvation. However, as in the other cases, Jesus gives His first recorded demonstrations of supernatural ability (1:47-50; 2:6-9) only after He Himself had had the Spirit come upon Him (1:32).

>> Acts 1:5-8 -- Here Luke changes his emphasis compared to ch. 3 of his Gospel. There is no mention of the consuming fire. Instead, here being baptized in the Spirit is explicitly linked to power for preaching and other ministry (Luke 24:47-49). In the next chapter, the promise is fulfilled, and then as Luke recorded Jesus doing in ch. 4 of his Gospel, Peter cites a relevant "Spirit upon" passage, this time from Joel 2, to announce and characterize the ministry of the Church.

>> Acts 11:16 with Acts 10:47 -- Here Luke quoting Peter seems to regard "received the Holy Spirit" and "baptized in the Holy Spirit" as the same thing, and it's about the most muddled case possible. Whether it means regeneration (being "born again") or empowering for ministry, or both, it all happened at the same time, BEFORE Peter had even finished preaching.

>> 1 Cor. 12:13 -- Here Paul regards being "baptized in the Spirit" as that event which makes us members of the body of Christ, i.e. regeneration, and yet the rest of the next three chapters are all about the supernatural ministry abilities available by the Spirit.


---------------------- Receive the Spirit --------------

>> John 7:37-39 -- Pentecostals often regard this as referring to the empowering work of the Spirit, as opposed to the saving, regenerating work of the Spirit in John 4:10-14. That is probably wrong. As Keener points out in his notes in the IVP Bible Background Commentary, and as translations like the NET and CEB show, the verses can be punctuated differently, such that the "rivers of living water," referring to the Spirit, flow from Jesus, not believers. So both here and in ch. 4, believers imbibe the Spirit and gain eternal life. (Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13, where imbibing the Spirit is parallel to being baptized in the Spirit.)

>> John 20:22 -- This is clearly talking about regeneration, imparting life. It evokes Gen. 2:7, where God breathed into Adam. It probably also suggests Eze. 37, as well as chapter 3 from earlier in John's Gospel, which in turn called to mind Eze. 36 and 37. (John 3 mixed both the "water" and "wind" metaphors for the Spirit.) But the setting of this verse is John's version of the Great Commission, and as in Luke's books, the coming of the Spirit is the necessary preparation for "going" (or here in John, being "sent") with the ministry of forgiving sins.

>> Acts 2:33(?) -- Here the exact phrase "receive(d) the Spirit" does not occur. The phrase is "received the promise of the Spirit." It harks back to Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4, and is talking about the empowering event at Pentecost. In this case, Jesus was the one who "received the promise," but comparing to those other two passages, He received the promise in order to pass it on.

>> Acts 2:38(?) -- Here the exact phrase is "receive the GIFT OF the Holy Spirit." The context suggests the "gift" is the Spirit Himself, although I suppose conceivably it could mean "ability to speak in tongues and prophecy," or more broadly, "power." If it "gift of" does refer to the Spirit Himself, then this is equivalent to "receive the Spirit." In the immediate context, since it is directly associated with repentance and baptism, it seems to suggest regeneration. However, the next verse mentions the "promise," tying it to v. 33 and the other verses cited, and the overall context ties it to the empowering of the Spirit.

>> Acts 8:14-17 -- This is an interesting case. Samaria had "accepted the word of God" and "been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," but had yet to "receive" the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit had not yet "fallen on" any of them. This suggests that in this context, "receiving" the Spirit and having the Spirit "fall upon" are considered the same thing, that it normally happened almost or literally at the same time one was born again and baptized, and that there was normally some observable evidence that it had happened. Pentecostals would normally insist that "speaking in tongues" is always the observable evidence, but that is not specifically mentioned here.

>> Acts 10:47 -- This is another complex passage. The "poured out" language (10:45) looks back to 2:17, 18, 33. The "gift" language (10:45) looks back to 2:38. The "fell on" language (10:44) looks back to 8:16, and is picked up again in 11:15; and in that one, Peter links it to the events of Pentecost in Acts 2. In v. 47, Luke quoting Peter explicitly uses "received the Holy Spirit," and it clearly refers to the "gift" of the Spirit, that being the Spirit Himself, being "poured out" and "falling upon" the recipients, enabling and prompting them to begin "speaking in tongues." And it happened *before* they were baptized, and in fact before Peter had even finished preaching.

>> Acts 19:2 -- Another ambiguous passage. At Ephesus, Paul found (19:1) "disciples," a word normally, but not exclusively (cf. Luke 5:33), used for students of Jesus. At some point in their learning, they came to "believe" (v.2), which almost always refers to coming to saving faith in Christ. But they had not received Christian baptism, and had not received the Spirit. It is clear from the tone that both of these things were expected to take place at almost if not literally the same time as "belief." And it is clear that "receiving the Spirit" was expected to have some observable evidence. In v. 6, the "come upon" language occurs, using a somewhat different word from the one used in, e.g., 11:15. Then the recipients respond with tongues and prophecy.

>> Rom. 8:15 -- Here "receive(d) the Spirit" refers to that event which makes us children of God. No ambiguity.

>> 1 Cor. 2:12 -- Here "receive(d) the Spirit" refers that which distinguishes us from "the world." This again would seem to be similar to Rom. 8:15.

>> 2 Cor. 11:4 -- In context, the emphasis seems to be salvation/regeneration. But it is not necessarily clear.

>> Gal. 3:2-14 -- Much is packed in this passage. The first two verses suggest that "receiv(ing) the Spirit" is the very "beginning" of the Christian life, and that it occurs as a result of faith. (Collaterally, this seems to go against the Calvinist idea that "regeneration (by the Spirit) precedes faith.") It did not require obedient performance of any "works of the Law." Then Paul shows that, contrary to the Judaizers, it also does not require doing any "works of the Law" to continue and progress in our salvation. Then in v. 5, Paul links the Spirit with ongoing works of power among believers. Finally in v. 14, he uses the "promise" language that harks back to Luke's books.


>>>> Bottom line: The terms "receive the Spirit" and "baptize in the Spirit" are used flexibly, maybe even interchangeably. Different passages invite different terminology and emphasis. Often, within the span of a chapter or less, both aspects -- rebirth/initiation and empowering -- show up in regard to either term.

After the gospels, you won't find reference to baptism in the Spirit by that term, except (and only in Acts) when, for the most part, "the Spirit falling on people" or "people receiving the Spirit" is later identified as "Baptism in the Spirit."

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Here, as you noted, the Holy Spirit himself is the gift - this is not a reference to the gifts of the Spirit.) Also, repentance seems to be a prerequisite for baptism, here and elsewhere.

Acts 18:14-17 + 19:1-6 show that John's baptism lapses, but baptism into Christ remains baptism in water, and that baptism into Christ and into the Holy Spirit are consecutive events (though not necessarily with a noticeable passage of time).

The primary difference between John's baptism and baptism into Christ appears to be that John's was a baptism for repentance of sins, where baptism into Christ is a baptism for remission of sins.

Baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit usually occur in that order, but the sequence is not fixed. The malleability shows that they are two different processes.

[GKC_fan]

>>>> Bottom line: The terms "receive the Spirit" and "baptize in the Spirit" are used flexibly, maybe even interchangeably. Different passages invite different terminology and emphasis. Often, within the span of a chapter or less, both aspects -- rebirth/initiation and empowering -- show up in regard to either term.

Thank you, NorrinRadd, for laying out the different passages. Staying grounded on the Biblical foundation by reminding ourselves precisely what the Bible does and doesn't say is so important.

And your final statement, is sound, I think.

Put another way, all these passages illustrate the vital principle that God can do anything he wants anytime he wants, and he doesn't have to ask anyone's permission! Nor conform to any of our human rules and systems and hard-and-fast definitions, that we so love to create. These different desriptions illustrate one of Professor Richard Pratt Jr.'s favorite sayings: "God could have written the Bible as a systematic theology textbook. But he didn't. Instead, he gave us stories."
(I think another big reason He did this was to help keep us all humble, by forcing us to admit that we don't know everything, thus being forced to always go to Him for the correct answers.)

I can tell you from my experience, and many other people have had the same, that the experience and result of being baptized in the Spirit many years after salvation was similar to that of being born again: that brand-new-world-and-life-and-heart feeling.

Also like some other people, I received tongues in a separate experience: over two years later, in my case. And while tongues are definitely important and powerful, they aren't nearly as important as the fruit of the Spirit. Tongues are an important ability or tool from the Spirit, but the fruit is His character. So it makes sense that tongues can be separate and later and are not a required part of the baptism, as they are less essential.

Thank you again for your very helpful post, my friend.

[NorrinRadd]

After the gospels, you won't find reference to baptism in the Spirit by that term, except (and only in Acts) ...

That somewhat depends on how you translate the "en" in 1 Cor. 12:13.

[GKC_fan]

Baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit usually occur in that order, but the sequence is not fixed. The malleability shows that they are two different processes.

Yes. Very interesting, isn't it? Refusing to conform to our all-too-common (and fleshly) human demand for clear structure, order, and concrete, unambiguous rules and definitions and doctrinal systems. As Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:8, those who are led by the Spirit flow like the wind, so we can't always know or anticipate or control what will happen.