Baptism in the Spirit: Is it Normal to Receive At or After Conversion?
Pastor Michael Peters looks at the Baptism with the Spirit in light of the whole salvation experience.
Editorial Introduction
This article is a chapter from Michael Peter’s book In Defense of Charismatics. In Defense was written as a response to John MacArthur’s book Charismatic Chaos and as a defense of charismatic beliefs and teachings. Peters wrote in the introduction to his book:
There is a lot of good among charismatic Christians that is worth defending. But, whenever God uses human instruments there are failings; therefore some criticism is justified. My purpose is not to defend every charge against individuals, but to defend charismatic teaching.
Because the emphasis is upon defending charismatic teaching, any number of noncharismatic authors could have been quoted. However, MacArthur’s book includes all the significant doctrinal differences, therefore his is the primary author quoted. The reader should not assume that MacArthur has a vendetta against charismatics or that charismatics do against him.
MacArthur has provided a service to the body of Christ by expressing his concerns and beliefs. It affords the opportunity to respond. Some would rather keep such doctrinal differences concealed. But Paul taught that we are to speak truth in love so that we can grow up in Christ (Eph. 4:15). If we cannot openly address differences we are destined to immaturity.
My hope and prayer is that upon reading this book, charismatics will become deepened in their convictions, and that noncharismatics will grow in their appreciation of charismatics by understanding that we too only want scriptural Christianity.
The Baptism with the Spirit—Distinct from Salvation? by Michael D. Peters
Linda had been a Christian for three years but felt something lacking. She couldn’t explain it except to say she needed more of God. Her praying and witnessing had diminished, and she didn’t feel as tender in heart toward God. She continued to attend meetings, and as the leader spoke on being closer to God, she listened. When he called for those to come forward who wanted more of God, she went. In a matter of minutes she was speaking in tongues. She didn’t go forward for tongues, but for God. Later, some told her that she was baptized with the Holy Spirit. She thought that she already had the Spirit but simply wanted to get closer to God. She continued to attend her family’s Lutheran church and to go to charismatic meetings. The Lutherans taught her that it was normal for Christians to receive the Spirit at conversion. The charismatics taught her that it was normal to receive the Spirit at the Baptism with the Spirit. She wondered which was normal? Or, we might ask, what is the normative Christian experience?
Normative
The reason knowing what is normative is important is because what is normative becomes the standard and should be sought by everyone. For example, new birth is the normative standard for salvation. Therefore, anyone desiring to become a Christian must seek new birth. Likewise, even though there are differences regarding water baptism’s meaning and mode, all Christians should seek water baptism. It is normative. Regarding the Baptism with the Spirit, what is normative? Should all Christians seek a post conversion baptism with the Spirit, or should all Christians confess that they received the Baptism with the Spirit at conversion?
Charismatics teach it is normative to seek Spirit baptism after conversion. Noncharismatics teach it is normative to receive it at conversion. Determining which of these is normative is made more difficult by what it implies regarding the other. If charismatics are correct then that implies that noncharismatics who don’t seek a post conversion Spirit baptism are living a subnormal Christianity. On the other hand, if noncharismatics are correct then that implies that charismatics who claim a post conversion Spirit baptism are living an abnormal Christianity. Unfortunately, charismatics have communicated to noncharismatics that they think they are subnormal. Likewise, noncharismatics have communicated to charismatics that they think they are abnormal.
Often the doctrinal discussions are lost in the heated feelings that arise when one is viewed as subnormal or abnormal. This makes discussion of what is normative very difficult. What is normative should never be used to determine if one is subnormal or abnormal, but should set a scriptural pattern for all to seek.
Two Principles of Normative
An example of the debate surrounding what charismatics and noncharismatics believe to be normative Spirit baptism is found in John MacArthur’s book Charismatic Chaos. Let us take a look at how this cessasionist noncharismatic defines normative Spirit baptism and evaluate his position in light of Scripture.
There are two principles that MacArthur uses to determine his definition of normative. His first principle is that “the only teachings in the Book of Acts that can be called normative for the church are those that are explicitly confirmed elsewhere in scripture.”1 And his second principle is that “in order for something to be normative, it has to be common to everyone.”2
Based upon the first principle, that the only normative experiences in Acts are those taught in other scripture, MacArthur asserts that other scriptures teach that the Spirit baptism occurs at conversion:
1 Corinthians 12:13 makes clear, Spirit baptism is actually an integral part of every Christian’s salvation experience. Paul wrote, “By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”3
In further elaboration on this passage MacArthur changes the word “by” to “with” so that the passage reads “with one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”4 This change effects the meaning of the passage. By changing it to “with” the passage implies that at conversion every believer is baptized with the Spirit rather than by the Spirit. While it should not be assumed that MacArthur speaks for any position but his own, this distinction of changing “by” to “with” is common among noncharismatic cessationists who believe there is no post-conversion Spirit baptism.5
MacArthur substantiates this change by appealing to Greek definitions of the preposition en and affirms that it can either be translated as “by” or “with” depending on the case of the word following it. That is true, but before we address that, there is an obvious question should be asked: If “with” the Spirit is more accurate, why do so many English translations render the Greek preposition en as “by”? The King James Bible, The Revised Standard Bible, The New American Standard Bible, and The New International Version all translate this verse as “by the Spirit.”
Also, if Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians taught that at conversion everyone was baptized with the Spirit, why in Acts are disciples baptized with the Spirit after conversion?6 That would make the Spirit’s work in Acts contrary to the Spirit’s teaching in the epistles.
This would violate the synthesis principle of interpretation that MacArthur defined as:
The synthesis principle puts Scripture together with Scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage that does not square with something in another passage, one of the passages is being interpreted incorrectly—or possibly both of them. The Holy Spirit does not disagree with himself.7
The Holy Spirit’s workings in Acts will not contradict the Holy Spirit’s inspired teaching. If the Spirit teaches in 1 Corinthians 12:13 that every believer receives the Spirit baptism at conversion, yet in Acts, the Apostles, Samaritans, Paul, and Ephesians were baptized with the Spirit after conversion, then the Holy Spirit would be contradicting himself. That means the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 that says every believer is baptized with the Spirit at conversion is inconsistent with the Spirit’s work in Acts.
Meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:13
Is there an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 that is consistent with the Spirit’s work in Acts? If 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not addressing the Baptism with the Spirit but the Baptism by the Spirit, it is not contradictory.
It is not just a matter of the meaning of a preposition. It is a matter of who is doing the baptizing. The baptism with the Spirit is performed by Christ (Matthew 3:11). Whereas, Paul wrote about a baptism performed by the Spirit. Of course, it would be wrong to dissect the Trinity, but the Scripture does identify certain works with different persons of the Trinity.
Returning now to the meaning of the Greek preposition en. Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar, explained the use of this preposition as it refers to the Spirit’s work of baptizing believers into the Body of Christ:
The word “Spirit” is in the instrumental case in Greek. … The personal agent in this case who does the baptizing is the Holy Spirit. He places or introduces the believing sinner into the Body of which the Lord Jesus is the living Head. We could translate, “By means of the personal agency of one Spirit, we all were placed in one body.” …
This brings us to a careful distinction which we must make. It is not the baptism with the Spirit or of the Spirit, in the sense that the Holy Spirit is the element which is applied to us. It is the baptism by the Spirit. This baptism does not bring the Spirit to us in the sense that God places the Spirit upon or in us. Rather, this baptism brings the believer into vital union with Jesus Christ.8
Kenneth Wuest is a noncharismatic. Nevertheless, he draws a distinction between a baptism with the Spirit from a baptism by the Spirit and asserts, because of the instrumental case of the word Spirit, that what is being referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is a baptism by the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13 is not teaching that at conversion everyone is baptized with the Spirit, rather at conversion everyone is baptized by the Spirit. At conversion everyone is baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ.
Common to All
The second principle that John MacArthur uses for determining what is normative Spirit baptism is that only those experiences common to all are normative. How does one determine what is common to all? According to MacArthur, if something was not specifically stated as having happened to all it was not therefore common to all. He asserts that since it was not specifically stated that the three thousand converted on the Day of Pentecost and the five thousand converted a few days later experienced a post conversion Spirit Baptism then it must not be common to all:
Why does the text in Acts 2 through 4 not say that everyone who believed following Peter’s sermons (over five thousand people according to Acts 4:4) and received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) also spoke in tongues? In order for something to be normative, it has to be common to everyone.9
MacArthur concludes that because there is no record of these early followers receiving a second or post-conversion baptism in the Spirit, it therefore did not happen. MacArthur is basing his conclusion upon what is called an argument from silence. Although such suppositions may seem quite convincing, arguments from silence prove little to nothing.
MacArthur’s basis for deciding what is common to all is inconclusive. Why? The book of Acts does not tell us in this case whether or not these believers experienced any post-conversion reception of the Spirit. Therefore this case cannot be used to determine either what is common to all or what is normative.
Yet, note some of the difficulties that can arise from standing on an argument from silence. In fact, to reject what is not said could be very dangerous. For example, think about what is not said in the book of Acts about water baptism. The same five thousand of whom it is not recorded that they experienced a post conversion Spirit baptism, it is also not recorded that they were water baptized (Acts 4:4). In addition to the five thousand, it is not said of multitudes of both men and women (Acts 5:14), many in Joppa (Acts 9:42), and of a great number in Antioch (Acts 11:21) that they were water baptized even though they believed. If the second principle of normative—what is common to all—were consistently applied, one must conclude that water baptism was not normative. No one who reads Acts would conclude that water baptism was not normative, unless he or she imposes some normative standard that forces the historian Luke to reaffirm every detail in every account.
No historian, not even an inspired one, recounts every detail. Luke recorded that Paul was filled with the Spirit (Acts 9:17). He did not record that Paul spoke in tongues, but Paul affirmed that he spoke in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18). Luke recorded the beginning of the church at Corinth (Acts 18:8-11). He did not record any charismatic gifts, yet Paul affirmed the Corinthian church possessed those gifts (See 1 Corinthians 1 & 12-14). Luke recorded the beginning of the church at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-4). He did not record any prophesying, yet Paul exhorted them to not despise prophesying (1 Thessalonians 5:20). One should not conclude because something was not recorded that it was absent.
This criteria for determining what was “common to all” requires that Luke record everything in every account. Luke did not do that. This approach or definition of what is “common to all” cannot be used to claim that a post conversion Spirit baptism was not normative any more than it can be used to assert that a post conversion water baptism was not normative.
Support for the belief that it is normative to receive the Spirit at conversion is not found with either of MacArthur’s two principles for determining what is normative. The first, that what is normative in Acts must be taught in the epistles, led to the conclusion that the Spirit’s work in Acts contradicted the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 that teaches Spirit baptism always occurs at conversion. The second, that only those things that are specifically stated are common to all, requires the rejection of a post conversion water baptism just as well as post conversion Spirit baptism.
Samaritans as Unique
All exceptions to what is normative, whether it be Spirit baptism or any other subject, must have Scriptural explanations as to why they are unique. The unique are experiences that are not normative for all. For example, every believer must be born again. That is normative. However, every believer need not encounter a blinding light like Paul did at his conversion. The blinding light was unique. What is unique should not be sought as a common experience.
The belief that Spirit baptism always occurs at conversion requires that the accounts in Acts where it occurred after conversion must be explained as unique. For MacArthur and others that believe this, the conversion of the Samaritans and their reception of the Spirit afterwards requires an explanation (Acts 8:14-17). To explain this so-called uniqueness, MacArthur states, “The reason for the interval between the Samaritans’ salvation and their receiving the Holy Spirit is that they were living in a period of transition between the covenants.”10 The transition was a transition from an exclusively Jewish or Messianic Christianity to a Christianity that included Gentiles, in particular, Samaritans whom the Jews despised. It is speculated that to overcome the ancient animosity between Samaritans and Jews, God waited before giving the Samaritans the Spirit, so that the Jewish Apostles might witness the Samaritans’ reception of the Spirit. This would confirm to the Apostles that God accepted the Samaritans, and would help them to accept the Samaritans as part of the church.
The acceptance of Samaritans was a transition for Jewish believers. It should not be underestimated how radical this was for first-century Christians. Thus, it is possible that to confirm the Samaritans’ acceptance, God waited for Peter and John before giving the Samaritans the Spirit. This explanation is possible, but it is only a speculation. It is only speculation that acceptance of the Samaritans was the basis of the interval between their conversion and Spirit baptism. It could just as easily be speculated that the interval was normal, and God timed the normal interval so the Apostles could witness the Samaritans’ reception of the Spirit. Or possibly the interval had nothing to do with Jewish Christians accepting the Samaritans, but had something to do with the ministry of Peter and John. It is all speculation, because all of these are arguments from silence.
Meaning of Oudepo
To establish the speculation that the interval was based on transition and that it was unique for the Samaritans to receive the Spirit after salvation, MacArthur appeals to a particular Greek word that he defines:
A point of grammar in Acts 8:16 makes the meaning clear: “He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The Greek word for “not yet” is oudepo. The term does not simply signify something that has not yet happened, but something that should have happened but has not yet. In other words, the verse is saying that the Samaritans were saved, but for some peculiar reason what should have happened—the Holy Spirit’s coming—had not yet occurred.11
MacArthur defines the Greek word oudepo as “not yet, but should have” to support the claim that the Samaritans’ had not but should have received the Spirit when they believed. That would explain why they were not normal, but unique.
However, the Greek word oudepo does not mean not yet but should have. The standard Greek dictionary used in most seminaries, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, is considered an authority on the Greek language and defines oudepo as “not yet.”12 It gives no other definition nor does it add any connotations such as should have happened. Two popular Greek dictionaries, Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament13 and Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words14 also define the meaning as “not yet.” None of the three Greek dictionaries defined oudepo as “not yet but should have happened.”
However, definitions can be limiting. Often, through usage, a word will take on an additional meaning. Therefore, the usage of this word must be examined throughout the New Testament. In the entire New Testament oudepo appears a total of four times. Besides its usage in Acts 8:16, it appears three time in John’s Gospel (John 7:39,19:41, 20:9).
To confirm the meaning “should have happened” the other three usages must be examined. The first usage in John’s Gospel occurred after Jesus spoke of the Spirit as flowing like a river: “But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet [oudepo] glorified” (John 7:39). There are two “not yet” in this passage. The first “not yet” is the Greek word oupo. The second “not yet” referring to Jesus’ glorification is the word oudepo. This usage cannot mean “had not but should have as this would mean Christ was glorified before He made His life a ransom for many.
The next occurrence of oudepo is in John 19:41: “Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet [oudepo] been laid.” This passage refers to the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and that Joseph had not yet been buried in it. It would be ridiculous to think that this man had not but should have been buried. This usage certainly does not confirm the “should have happened” definition.
The final place where oudepo appears is after the disciples, Peter and John saw the empty tomb, the Scriptures state, “For as yet [oudepo] they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” (John 20:9). Are we to believe that the disciples had not but should have known the Scripture that he would rise again? For us reading this passage after the resurrection, it would be easy to read into it that they should have known. But did Jesus expect them to know?
Prior to his rising, Christ’s teaching regarding his resurrection was hidden from the disciples: “This saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken” (Luke 18:34). It was not until after his rising did Christ open up their understanding regarding his resurrection: “And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day’” (Luke 24:44-46). Before he arose Christ did not expect them to know what the Scripture taught regarding His resurrection; it was hidden from their understanding. There is nothing in the accounts that implies that the disciples did not but should have understood the Scriptures regarding Christ’s resurrection. This usage does not confirm the “should have happened” definition.
Not one of these three Greek lexicons examined defined oudepo as “should have happened.” Neither did one of the Scriptural usages of oudepo intimate the connotation of “should have happened.” To state that oudepo means “should have happened” is to give it a definition that neither Greek lexicons nor New Testament usage supports. Nothing in the Greek supports the theory that the Samaritans’ reception of the Spirit after conversion was unique.
The Samaritans were not unique. They followed the pattern of several others in the Book of Acts. The Apostles, the Samaritans, Paul, and the Ephesian disciples all received the Spirit after believing. They were born again by the Spirit then baptized with the Spirit. Their experience was common.
Falling, Filling, or Baptism is Normative
To define what is normative regarding the baptism with the Spirit is difficult because God gave the Spirit baptism to one at conversion and to another after conversion. It is also difficult to define what is normative because neither Jesus nor the Apostles defined it according to the present day terminology of debate. Jesus and the Apostles spoke just as freely of the Holy Spirit falling upon someone as they did of a baptism or filling with the Spirit. They used multiple terms to describe the same experience.
In Acts, the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is only mentioned twice. First by Jesus, “You have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:4-5). Three verses later, when Jesus described the Spirit baptism, He did not even use the word baptism. He only said, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). Instead of speaking a baptism, He now spoke of the Spirit coming upon them. On the Day of Pentecost, when the event actually occurred, it was not stated that they were baptized, but filled with the Spirit: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). The same experience was described as a baptism, a coming upon, and a filling.
Peter made the only other specific reference to the Baptism with the Spirit. In his report to the Jerusalem brethren he described the Spirit’s falling upon Cornelius’ household as a baptism: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the Word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 11:15-16).
Was it a falling, a filling, or a baptism? The Apostles were comfortable using numerous expressions. They did not define the fillings of the Spirit into a tidy theological definition for the purpose of determining what was normative.
If there is a normative Spirit baptism, it is this: The Spirit is sovereign in His affairs with men. Being in relationship with Him involves multiple fillings of which the Baptism with the Spirit is one which may occur at or after conversion.
PR
Notes
1 John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 172. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.
2 MacArthur 175.
3 MacArthur 189.
4 MacArthur 189-190.
5 Editor’s note: For perhaps the most thorough discussion of charismatic and Pentecostal definitions of Spirit baptism, see H. I. Lederle’s monumental work, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen Publishers, 1988). In various places in this work, the “one-stage” or unified interpretation of Spirit baptism is identified with the cessationist position, see especially pp. 2-5.
6 Editor’s note: Michael Peters demonstrated that the disciples were baptized with the Spirit after conversion in his previous article that appeared in the premiere issue of the Pneuma Review. See “Baptism with the Spirit: Distinct from Salvation,” Michael Peters, Pneuma Review (Vol. 1, No. 1), pp. 41-53.
7 MacArthur 94.
8 Kenneth Wuest, “Untranslatable Riches from the Greek New Testament,” Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 85-86. Used by permission of Eerdmans Publishing.
9 MacArthur 174-175.
10 MacArthur 180.
11 MacArthur 180-181.
12 A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, A Translation and Adaptation of the Fourth Revised and Augmentated Edition of Walter Bauer’s, William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 2nd Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 592. Used by permission.
13 Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House) 462. Used by permission.
14 W.E. Vine, M.A., Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Lynchburg) 781. Used by permission.
