What's new
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Is there any error in the below teaching from Jack Kelley?

QUESTION: What do you believe about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Do you think it’s still relevant to us today?

ANSWER: This idea originated with a statement made by John the Baptist in Matt. 3:11. He said that while he baptized with water for repentance, another would come after him who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He was speaking about Jesus, and that his role was to prepare the world for the Lord’s coming. Much later, this gave rise to the belief that Christians actually need two baptisms, one of water and one of the Holy Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples with tongues of fire enabling them to speak in such a way that all the people there heard them in their own languages. This led to the view that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the gift of tongues.

These conclusions have been shown to be bad theology for several reasons. First, we now baptize as a sign that we have already received Jesus, and therefore the Holy Spirit, not to prepare ourselves to do so as in John’s day.

Second, the disciples had actually received the Holy Spirit 50 days earlier in the Upper Room (John 20:22) and there was no manifestation of tongues. Third, the Greek in Acts 2 says that the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost, not dwelt within them. This indicates that they were given a special ability to help confirm their claims to those listening. And in fact, in each of the three occasions where baptism is accompanied by tongues in the Book of Acts that is the case. And fourth, in his definitive explanation of Spiritual Gifts, Paul says that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts to believers as He sees fit, explaining that one will receive one kind of gift while another receives a different kind. (1 Cor.12:4-11) and implying in verse 30 that not all will speak in tongues.

All that said, the Holy Spirit is invested in each of us at the moment of belief, not at a special baptism. And at that time each of us is given one or more spiritual gifts, specifically chosen to help us make our unique contribution to the Church as a whole. From time to time, as it’s required, the Holy Spirit may also come upon any of us to perform a special miraculous feat, be it healing, raising the dead, speaking in other languages, prophesying, or whatever is needed to accomplish God’s purpose.


@mattfivefour
 
Third, the Greek in Acts 2 says that the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost, not dwelt within them. This indicates that they were given a special ability to help confirm their claims to those listening.
This is my view, that the gift of tongues/languages was confirmation. That view includes that the first century church had other gifts of confirmations: raising from the dead/healings/prophecies, etc., and after John the Beloved had written the Book of Revelation and died God closed His Book and most gifts.

It's not something that bothers me if a brother or sister has spiritual utterances and I don't practice. I do believe God still gives miraculous healings too.
 
Is there any error in the below teaching from Jack Kelley?

QUESTION: What do you believe about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Do you think it’s still relevant to us today?

ANSWER: This idea originated with a statement made by John the Baptist in Matt. 3:11. He said that while he baptized with water for repentance, another would come after him who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He was speaking about Jesus, and that his role was to prepare the world for the Lord’s coming. Much later, this gave rise to the belief that Christians actually need two baptisms, one of water and one of the Holy Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples with tongues of fire enabling them to speak in such a way that all the people there heard them in their own languages. This led to the view that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the gift of tongues.

These conclusions have been shown to be bad theology for several reasons. First, we now baptize as a sign that we have already received Jesus, and therefore the Holy Spirit, not to prepare ourselves to do so as in John’s day.

Second, the disciples had actually received the Holy Spirit 50 days earlier in the Upper Room (John 20:22) and there was no manifestation of tongues. Third, the Greek in Acts 2 says that the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost, not dwelt within them. This indicates that they were given a special ability to help confirm their claims to those listening. And in fact, in each of the three occasions where baptism is accompanied by tongues in the Book of Acts that is the case. And fourth, in his definitive explanation of Spiritual Gifts, Paul says that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts to believers as He sees fit, explaining that one will receive one kind of gift while another receives a different kind. (1 Cor.12:4-11) and implying in verse 30 that not all will speak in tongues.

All that said, the Holy Spirit is invested in each of us at the moment of belief, not at a special baptism. And at that time each of us is given one or more spiritual gifts, specifically chosen to help us make our unique contribution to the Church as a whole. From time to time, as it’s required, the Holy Spirit may also come upon any of us to perform a special miraculous feat, be it healing, raising the dead, speaking in other languages, prophesying, or whatever is needed to accomplish God’s purpose.


@mattfivefour
I completely agree with this post by Jack Kelley. Thank you for posting this Andy!

I respectfully disagree with Mattfivefour’s view of speaking in tongues even though I highly appreciate his post on it. I’m grateful we have the ability to share different views on here. It helps me make sure I have a strong scriptural backing for why I believe what I do.
 
Is there any error in the below teaching from Jack Kelley?

QUESTION: What do you believe about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Do you think it’s still relevant to us today?

ANSWER: This idea originated with a statement made by John the Baptist in Matt. 3:11. He said that while he baptized with water for repentance, another would come after him who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He was speaking about Jesus, and that his role was to prepare the world for the Lord’s coming. Much later, this gave rise to the belief that Christians actually need two baptisms, one of water and one of the Holy Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples with tongues of fire enabling them to speak in such a way that all the people there heard them in their own languages. This led to the view that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the gift of tongues.

These conclusions have been shown to be bad theology for several reasons. First, we now baptize as a sign that we have already received Jesus, and therefore the Holy Spirit, not to prepare ourselves to do so as in John’s day.

Second, the disciples had actually received the Holy Spirit 50 days earlier in the Upper Room (John 20:22) and there was no manifestation of tongues. Third, the Greek in Acts 2 says that the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost, not dwelt within them. This indicates that they were given a special ability to help confirm their claims to those listening. And in fact, in each of the three occasions where baptism is accompanied by tongues in the Book of Acts that is the case. And fourth, in his definitive explanation of Spiritual Gifts, Paul says that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts to believers as He sees fit, explaining that one will receive one kind of gift while another receives a different kind. (1 Cor.12:4-11) and implying in verse 30 that not all will speak in tongues.

All that said, the Holy Spirit is invested in each of us at the moment of belief, not at a special baptism. And at that time each of us is given one or more spiritual gifts, specifically chosen to help us make our unique contribution to the Church as a whole. From time to time, as it’s required, the Holy Spirit may also come upon any of us to perform a special miraculous feat, be it healing, raising the dead, speaking in other languages, prophesying, or whatever is needed to accomplish God’s purpose.


@mattfivefour

@Andy C, I think I've gone around on this with Jack in the distant past. I respectfully disagreed then with his view, and I still disagree. Jack says that the idea of the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes from a statement made by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11. He is in error. The idea comes from Jesus in Acts 1:5 where He says, "John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." It's a statement that Peter --not Paul, but Peter-- repeats verbatim in Acts 11:16.

Jack is correct in stating that the disciples received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. Just as he is, of course, absolutely correct in stating that we all receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. In this latter case the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us. He seals us for eternity as he takes up residence in us. In the article you posted, Jack then makes the point that the Greek of Acts 2:3 says the Holy Spirit "came upon" the disciples on the Day of Pentecost in, not "dwelt in" them. He is absolutely correct here as well. But what he doesn't realize is that by saying this he's just inadvertently made the point for the baptism of the Holy Spirit! You see, the disciples already had the Holy Spirit, but then at Pentecost the Holy Spirit came upon them: literally He whelmed them (which is the meaning of the word baptize) which means He covered them. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit!

The outward evidence of this was speaking in tongues and throughout the Book of Acts was evidenced (either directly in the text or indirectly by the evidence evinced in the text) whenever Gentiles or others came to faith in Christ and not only received the Holy Spirit but were baptized by Him. I know from my own experience and that of countless others whose paths I have crossed and ministries I have encountered over the past five decades or so at the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is real. I've heard many testimonies that until this "baptism" men of God had found their ministry lacking in power and results. One of the earliest I ever heard of was DL Moody. He said that until this second work of grace (my words not his) his ministry was flat. He said after the experience his ministry exploded, to which he gives all the glory to God. He was so convinced of the importance of this Baptism of the Holy Spirit (his words, not mine) that he did not allow any of his students to graduate from his Bible College without first having sought it. His protege RA Torrey testifies to this fact.

So, to my view, the Word of God testifies to this baptism and so does the experience of many, many believers, including myself. That said, whether a person believes this doctrine or not, or has the experience or not, is irrelevant to our fellowship. I think those who refuse to ask God for it in faith are robbing themselves of a wonderful and powerful tool. But that's between them and God. That's not between me and them. We each walk according to the light given us and keep our eyes on our God and Savior whom we desire to please. Hopefully each decision we make is made with the aim of pleasing God. Therefore there is no cause for division or argument among brothers and sisters on this issue.

In conclusion, I do want to add one very important thing and I want to add it because it involves the thing that causes the most division in the Body: tongues as the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am aware that what I say as a pastor carries a lot of weight, so I do not say the following lightly; but I personally am not convinced that tongues is the only evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Moody, to my knowledge, never spoke in tongues, yet his description of the event that changed his life and ministry sounds to me exactly like the baptism. And so do the accounts of others in history who had a definite mysterious experience at some point following salvation, but never spoke in tongues. I have displayed the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues in my life, so I know it is one of the gifts of the Spirit and is still being given today. But I do not recall a single dramatic moment of the baptism in the Holy Spirit being evidenced by tongues. However, many others whom I know have definitely had such a dramatic moment, including my son Mark. Equally, I've met others with powerful testimonies and ministries who have never spoken in tongues. I have studied many arguments, both pro and con, but neither scripture nor anecdotal evidence have convinced me that tongues are the only evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. So while I will defend forever the idea that tongues definitely ARE a gift of the Holy Spirit and are in operation today, I will not spend any time arguing that tongues are the only evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And I will let it rest at that. Far more important in the Church than tongues is the love of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 13, right in the middle of the discussion of the gifts. I find myself constrained by the words of Psalm 133:

1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!​
2 It is like the precious oil upon the head, running down on the beard, the beard of Aaron, running down on the edge of his garments.​
3 It is like the dew of Hermon, descending upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessing-- life forevermore.​

I pray somebody is helped by what I have written here.
 
Connotations are used in society and are continually changing. I read above that you are blessed with 81 year - so far! :)

I grew up in SW Ohio. My parent's church was filled with Southerners, and so we had a Southern preacher. Good man who enjoyed the spoiling of good Southern cooking more than he might should have done. He passed away from a heart attack, I think in his fifties. Times were changing, and new information was circulating throughout the country. The Church wanted a properly educated man to replace the Spirit called man. After several candidates, they allowed a man from Canada to preach as his credentials were impressive. His speech was free from our colloquial additives. Everyone agreed, and he was hired. He and his family settled. One Sunday, maybe three months after his arrival, he announced to the congregation that he had something to tell us. He was visibly irritated. He said that he didn't think we were using a word purposely to offend him, but he just could not continue without telling us about it. We were all ears. "Piddle" means to a Southerner "tinkering around with something to pass the time". We used it often when asked if we were busy. No, we would say, just piddling. What's up? Unbeknownst to us, piddle had the connotation of what one does in the bedroom between married folk.

How about I trade "connotation" for my "understanding"? 😁
Paul was tasked, by Jesus, to teach peoples who were generally ignorant of the Old Covenant, the Law, then explain how the Law was the foreshadowing of the New Covenant, and Jesus's Good News? The man had patience!! How do you meet and teach people who could care less about the Jew's God? They had plenty already. With the Spirit's guidance Paul met people where they were - spiritually. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the practice of secret societies, "enlightenment" from their gods given to the few to declare over others. The others were told that they were not worthy. It is why the Word makes clear that it was written by the Holy Spirit guiding man's hand and there is not any hidden understanding outside of the Word. We all have the same Word.
The Gentiles with this notoriety of getting special information from their gods, would make strange utterances and flail about like madmen. I wasn't there - not that old. Historian's information.
This practice was what Paul used to explain to them how futile their actions were, and how better the true Spirit of God's gifts were; a sure gift that was useful to share the Blessed Hope of Salvation with others whose language was not the same as theirs. The mystery held until the proper time. The goodness of our Creator to correct forevermore what was destroyed in the Garden of Eden by making the ultimate sacrifice of sending His Word, God the Son, to bear all sin. The mystery is solved for the Gentiles. The mystery is still a mystery, in part, to the Jewish Nation for God's pleasure and love toward the Gentiles; however, there is a time fast approaching where the mystery will be revealed to the Wife - not Bride - of Christ Jesus. God's love and commitment to Zion
hasn't wavered.
Thank you for your careful reply. I appreciate the effort you put into it. And thank you for the perspective given by the historian you reference. Some of what you recounted was novel to me: in all my years I had never heard quite that perspective on the reason why Paul wrote First Corinthians. But I appreciate it and it helps me understand where you're coming from. May I give you my own perspective so you know where I'm coming from in this discussion of the gifts of the Spirit --including tongues and their operation-- in the Body?


Due in part to its geographic location on the strip of land that joined the Adriatic (with direct access to Italian ports) and the Aegean (with direct access to Turkey and thence to India and the Orient) and also joining mainland Greece to the Peloponnesian peninsula and in part to the role they played in King Philip's expansion of his Macedonian empire, Corinth had a long, rich, powerful, and proud history. In later years, Corinth was the center of the resistance against Rome's efforts to conquer Asia Minor. The Romans destroyed Corinth 146 years before Christ but then rebuilt it as a key center connecting Rome to the Eastern provinces.

The Corinthians were a very proud people, all of them always striving to be better than the person next to them, sexually perverse, highly religious in their own polytheistic religions, and intellectually arrogant. They worshiped many gods, the chief of which was Aphrodite whose worship involved male and female prostitutes and gender fluidity. The city was so sexually corrupt that it gave its name to a verb: corinthianize, which meant to live a thoroughly debauched and promiscuous life.

It was into this environment that Paul arrived around 50 AD during his second missionary journey. His message of the grace and goodness of Jesus Christ found fertile ground here. Starting with the Jews, Paul began to evangelize, quickly adding Gentiles to the mix. After a year and a half he left the city but stayed in touch. We know that, receiving reports of what was going on in the church there, Paul had written a letter to them which has been lost. And they had written a letter to him which also has been lost. But having received verbal reports as well, Paul wrote this second letter (which we call 1st Corinthians) in order to try to deal with the problems that had arisen.

First, the Corinthians' pride led them to form factions based on who was their favorite teacher. (Doesn't that sound a lot like what goes on today? People gathering around elevating and defending one pastor or another, rather than realizing that it's all about Christ.) The other major problem was the pride that caused them to prize dramatic spiritual gifts in order to appear better than the person next to them. In their previous pagan religion, hidden knowledge and dramatic gifts that were unavailable to the uninitiated were sought after. Those who had this secret knowledge or special gift could claim spiritual superiority over their neighbor, indeed over the church as a whole. While Paul dealt with many issues such as internal disagreements and lawsuits, spiritual selfishness and pride, divorce, sexual immorality and other aspects of Christian living, he was most focused on the most important problem: the proper functioning of the body of Christ. This involved correcting attitudes regarding Christian fellowship; the proper attitude toward, and operation of, spiritual gifts; and the proper attitude toward, and functioning within, church services. From the structure and content of 1st Corinthians, we can see that these three areas were Paul's chief concerns. The Corinthians' strong individualism; their spiritual pride and arrogance which led them to divide themselves, each party thinking it was the best; and their ingrained attitudes toward spiritual practices derived from their pagan religious upbringing were his chief obstacles to be confronted and corrected.

When we place 1st Corinthians chapters 1 through 4 and 12 through 14 into this context, I believe we are better able to determine a correct understanding of the purpose of his teaching. In the first four chapters he deals with the pride and party spirit among the Corinthians, who have divided themselves according to their favorite teacher and are operating on the basis of individual spiritual status. Paul brings them back to the realization that is not a teacher but Christ to whom they owe their loyalties and upon whom they should be focused. He emphatically teaches that true wisdom and spiritual maturity lead to unity, not division. (Which is a lesson that is badly needed in the church today!)

In chapters 5 through the first half of chapter 11 He deals with immorality; lawsuits among believers; the Christian's responsibility toward God and their fellow believers; marriage; divorce; acceptance of one's lot in life; food sacrificed to idols, and the correct attitudes on the part of those who eat such food and those who do not eat such food; their responsibility to spiritual leaders; the example he has set for them; idolatry; and warnings from Israel's past.

Beginning in the second part of the v11th chapter, which deals with Corinthian attitudes, Paul turns his attention to correct practices within the Church, including the purpose and practice of the Lord's Supper. And then, in chapters 12 through 14, he deals with spiritual gifts, their purpose and their operation. As you yourself pointed out in your reply to me above, Paul had to deal with a spiritual pride and arrogance of the Corinthians that was rooted in their pagan past. To them tongues was a sign of spiritual superiority and, since superiority is what they sought, they focused on the most dramatic gifts, including tongues. First, Paul tells them that the gifts are just that-- gifts. They are neither earned nor achieved. They are gifts from the Holy Spirit and He gives them as HE wills. Paul explains that the gifts are not given to build up the individual but to build up the body, thus continuing his initial message that unity is the focus and individualism only divides. In both chapters 12 and 14 He deals specifically with the gifts and their proper function and operation, including tongues. He does not denigrate tongues, nor does he elevate them. He does give them importance but in proper perspective. He, in fact, encourages the private use of tongues by the way he speaks. But woven throughout it all is the idea of unity within the body, that the gifts are all for the building up of the corporate body of Christ, not for the enjoyment of the individual.

But what is so dramatic is that smack dab between chapter 12 and chapter 14 is chapter 13. This is not accidental; it is extremely intentional. The Holy Spirit wanted everything to do with spiritual gifts to be hung on one central peg: love. Remember, God is a god of love. In fact His Word plainly says He IS love (1 John 4:8). We ourselves are both created and called to love God with everything in us and to love our neighbor as our self (Matthew 22:37-39). In fact, Jesus said we would be known by our love (John 13:35). It is not happenstance that love is listed first in the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Through John, the Holy Spirit is quite emphatic as to the fundamental importance of love in our lives as Christians. He inspired the apostle to write:

Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)​

So here, placed right in the very center of the discussion of the gifts, like an arrow piercing the topic, is this mountain peak that reveals not just the critical importance of love but describes what it is and really looks like. Without it, God says, the gifts of the Spirit --all of them--are meaningless and useless. Hung on this thought, Paul's discussion of the gifts now not only gains perspective but tackles head on the spiritual pride and the self-seeking attitudes of the Corinthians.

To me, the broad context of the history of the Corinthians, the narrower context of the content of this letter, and the specific context of chapters 12 through 14 gives us the light with which to understand and properly interpret this epistle and its teachings ... including how to view the gifts as to their purpose and their operation.

When it comes to how I therefore understand and interpret the subject of this thread --namely tongues and what is termed the Baptism of the Holy Spirit-- may I point to the post on this very subject that I gave in response to a specific question asked of me by Andy C? You will find it here:

Sister, thank you so much for the dialogue so far. I love discussing the word of God and I look forward to your response.
 
Something I wrote in another thread.

 
Back
Top