Ray’s comment and my reply were deleted in the restoring of the site from back up. Here’s my comment from earlier this evening. I’ll post Ray’s responses in a second posts:
Outreachdownenray wrote,
I figure the reason Jay thinks the apostles received the “gift of the Spirit” without being immersed is that he for some reason wants to believe every gift of the Spirit is identical, which they are obviously not.
Ray,
We have to distinguish between the “gift [d?rea] of the Spirit,” which is the Spirit himself, and gifts [charismata] given by the Spirit. All Christians receive the same Spirit. Christians receive widely differing gifts.
Since there is no record of the apostles being baptized for the remission of their sins after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, it might be surmised that they were not baptized with “Christian baptism.” But that’s not taught doctrine. It’s a guess.
The record of the original 120 being baptized in the Spirit is quite plain that they were not in the process of being immersed when they received the Spirit. They were waiting and praying. Moreover, it would be astonishing if they’d gone to be baptized between receiving the Spirit and preaching at Pentecost, as the crowds gathered immediately upon hearing the sound of the wind. And I’m sure Luke would have recorded their trip to a pool to be baptized while the crowds waited for a sermon.
Indeed, once we realize that the baptism with the Spirit is the baptism all Christians receive (although with quite different gifts), it’s obvious the original 120 never received Christian water baptism.
None of these gifts seem to have continued to happen past the apostolic age.
Actually, the historical records do not record any cessation of miracles at the second, third, or fourth generations. As I posted sometime ago, it wasn’t until the 5th Century, during the time of Augustine, that Augustine came up with the cessationist theory. But he later recanted, because he’d been able to document many miraculous events in his own part of the world.
To suggest miracles ended one generation after the apostles is to argue from wishful thinking. It might be true that all miracles occurring after that generation were fake, hysterical, or whatever, but you can only reach that conclusion by presuming. There is no evidence that this is true, and the scriptural arguments are all very weak.
This causes me to think those “gifts of the Spirit” were transmitted only by the “laying on of hands” by an apostle, as they were in those first years while the apostles were alive.
That’s a popular view — and not just within the Churches of Christ. But it’s ultimately unsupportable.
Yes, there are cases where miraculous manifestations appeared immediately upon the laying of hands following baptism (Samaritans, Ephesians), but as Alexander has noted, it appears that the laying on of hands was customarily done immediately after baptism (the Samaritans being an exception). Thus, this was also the time the Spirit was initially received, and in the case of the Ephesians, the point of the tongues and prophecy was that the Ephesians had received the Spirit — which they’d not received following John’s baptism.
Moreover, there are examples of Christians having gifts without apostolic laying on of hands. Romans 12 mentions the presence of prophets and other spiritual gifts in Rome, and yet no apostle had ever been to Rome. The Corinthian church was filled with miraculous gifts, and yet Paul had only baptized a few. It would seem odd that he’d refuse to baptize, for fear of creating a class of members having a special, apostolic baptism, and then lay hands on some but not all — which would surely have created far more jealousy than baptizing some but not all!
Moreover, Rom 12, Eph 4, and 1 Cor 12 list various gifts of the Spirit and yet make no distinction at all between miraculous and non-miraculous gifts. Thus, Paul says,
(1Co 12:8-11 ESV) 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
Paul declares that the Spirit decides who gets what gift– and thus not the apostle. And some of these gifts — knowledge, wisdom — seem less than miraculous, since they are distinguished from prophecy, and even said by Paul to be lower than prophecy.
(1Co 12:13 ESV) 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Again, Paul makes it clear that all Corinthians have the very same Spirit — a hard claim to make if some Corinthians have a special, apostolic empowerment and the others do not. If the Spirit grants differing gifts, then it’s his choice. But if Paul decides, then the “one Spirit” argument would sound pretty hollow when he’s arguing against jealousy!
(1Co 12:28-30 ESV) 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
Again, most of these gifts are pretty spectacular, but “helping”? “administrating”? Indeed, Paul plainly implies by “Do all work miracles” that most do not! But all have the same Spirit.
(1Co 12:31 ESV) 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.
What on earth does Paul mean by “earnestly desire the higher gifts”? To prophesy? 1 Cor 14:1 would so imply.
(1Co 14:1 ESV) Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.
Well, if Paul is not in Corinth, why desire prophecy if prophecy only comes by the hands of an apostle? Isn’t that like telling someone to ask for what he can’t have? Isn’t it even cruel to urge a desire for the impossible?
Therefore, I’m of the opinion that the Spirit gives whatever gifts the Spirit wants, and doesn’t need an apostle to do it. The reason gifts appear to come with the laying on of hands is that baptism was often followed by the laying on of hands, which is also when the Spirit — received at baptism — would be manifested. And it served the Spirit’s purpose to grant obvious manifestations in the case of the Samaritans and Ephesians so that it would be plain that the Spirit had been received.
The reason the Spirit came with the apostles’ hands in Samaria is the same reason the Spirit wasn’t received at baptism. Notice, that the text says the Spirit wasn’t received, not that gifts of the Spirit weren’t received. The Spirit didn’t come because the apostles were disobedient to the command to preach the gospel to the Samaritans. By refusing the Spirit, God forced the apostles to leave Jerusalem and formally approve the conversion of the Samaritans by completing the baptismal rite themselves!
Remember that baptism (and the laying on of hands, when practiced) indicates not only forgiveness and the Spirit but the church’s acceptance of the convert’s confession (which is why we sometimes refuse baptism to those we consider not yet ready). Thus, the apostles’ arrival and laying on of hands indicated their acceptance of the Samaritans as brothers — and thus their acceptance by the church universal. And God then proved his acceptance by miraculous manifestations given with the Spirit himself.
This is the reverse of what God did with Cornelius, where God gave the Spirit — evidenced by tongues — with neither baptism nor the laying on of hands, to force Peter to accept the Gentiles.
“The gospel” is good news about JESUS, not about His Spirit. We are called to spread the gospel throughout the world. The Spirit is sent at the Father’s direction and the unique Son’s direction. At times selected by them. It is suggested that we should ask to “receive” the Spirit. Yet the Spirit is given (God’s GIFT) to every believer at the conclusion of the new birth of water and spirit. So it might be thought obvious that there are varying “gifts” of the Spirit. And our commission is to carry wherever we go the message about Jesus, not about His Spirit.
Amen. There is no reason to pray for the Spirit, as all Christians have the Spirit (Rom 8:9-11). But we may well pray for particular gifts of the Spirit. Indeed, we should. James says to pray for wisdom, and even my most conservative brothers teach this. But when someone suggests that God might give wisdom through the Spirit, they are called heretics by a few. It’s an odd place to draw the line. If we can pray for wisdom, we can pray for the gift of wisdom.
It bothers some that this theory opens us up to the possibility of modern-day miracles, which seems, you know, uncomfortable. But then five minutes after someone screams about how horrible it would be to have modern-day miracles, they drop to their knees and pray that God heal a loved one. We pray for miracles and then running screaming when they happen.
We don’t control the Spirit. Just as was true in Old Testament times, God will do what wonders suit him, and we don’t control God. But we are told to pray and ask, and we should do just that. Faith can do no less.
Jay, please let me say thank you for this post. It is cogent, thorough and unapologetic. It incorporates what I think I respect most in your writings: the capacity to set aside bad arguments without wriggling or hand-wringing and to just embrace what God reveals to you in scripture and in the church. I have been addressing this topic for many years in discussions with my CoC brothers, and I have never put the package together so well as you have here.
Thanks again, not for somehow agreeing with me, but for an extremely effective and biblically sound essay.
Charles admires Jay’s writing. We all do, no doubt. And Charles seems to agree with all that Jay has taught in this writing above. I surely do not agree. I’m positive that there is no evidence and no good reason to believe that 120 received the baptism in the Spirit. And the statement next quoted is totally unfounded in fact: it appears that the laying on of hands was customarily done immediately after baptism (the Samaritans being an exception).
What “laying on of hands” is in question? Where is there even one record of any baptizer then immediately “laying hands on” to anoint a newly-baptized convert? I’ve studied Acts rather extensively and have never seen any such event recorded. The one episode which might be misunderstood as an “immediate” laying on of hands (The ONE, I point out) is when Paul baptized into Christ some fellows who had not previously been baptized into Christ. It’s not explained why the apostle chose to anoint them. No doubt he had his reasons. It doesn’t matter. He did anoint these particular fellows. They did then speak in tongues, Luke reports. That’s ONE instance. Are there others? Or is this an exception to normal practice? Jay is saying it was always done, as I hear him. I think Luke knows nothing about it being normal, or ever done at another time.
We can learn something, if we want to learn, from the experience at Samaria. Philip went there, performed miracles of healing, and preached and won many to Christ, then baptized them. For an unexplained reason, there were no signs given to confirm that these non-Jews were accepted by God. The apostles came. They laid hands upon some who had been baptized and then THOSE few who received the laying on of apostolic hands did perform “signs” of having received God’s Spirit.
Did the laying on of hands immediately follow the baptizing. No, not at all. Was Philip able to lay on hands and see following signs? No, there’s no record of such. What does that say about what Jay is teaching?
Jay guesses and affirms: The reason the Spirit came with the apostles’ hands in Samaria is the same reason the Spirit wasn’t received at baptism. Notice, that the text says the Spirit wasn’t received, not that gifts of the Spirit weren’t received. The Spirit didn’t come because the apostles were disobedient to the command to preach the gospel to the Samaritans. By refusing the Spirit, God forced the apostles to leave Jerusalem and formally approve the conversion of the Samaritans by completing the baptismal rite themselves!
There is no evidence in other writings or in this recital by Luke that there was a “baptismal rite” with or without laying on of hands. They just baptized. They did it by immersing the convert in water and raising the convert up “into new life.” The act was done “in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit” as Jesus had said it should be done. But it involved no laying on of hands.
There was absolutely no laying on of hands involved in any of the several baptisms Luke records other than the one which followed Paul baptizing 12 Baptists. But what is made clear is that only the apostles could transmit special gifts of the Spirit by this means. Philip had himself been anointed, and was able to perform miracles. But he could not give others such powers. Nor could any other baptizer except the apostles who had received the baptism in the Spirit from Jesus. At least that’s what Luke says as he records the history of the early church.
Jay suggests we should go to early church fathers to learn what the apostles taught and practiced. I wonder if that’s good advice. The early church leaders decided that the books we have in our New Testament were the accurate and helpful books to guide our faith in Jesus. They passed on most of these which some now want us to consider as equally inspired as the 27 New Testament books. I don’t choose to go there to learn what the apostles taught and practiced. And how urgent is the need to rightly understand the inspired writings. Adding to what was written is changing what was written by inspiration. This thing of “laying on of hands” and transmitting gifts of the Spirit by non-apostles is one obvious addition to what was written by inspiration. What Luke records is the simple performance of an immersion and raising up as being the baptism taught by Jesus and His apostles.
Ray, it is all well and good for you to continue to repeat your assertions as though such repetition would endue these assertions with factuality. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Also, continuing to ignore where your arguments are contradicted by scripture and by simple reason does not serve as a rebuttal.
One significant difference I read between what you write and what Jay has written is that Jay actually addresses your objections with reason while you address objections with either silence or repetition of your original points without any additional support being offered.
You state categorically that no one today can perform miracles. No proof is offered of this statement besides your sheer unbelief. I admit you have bitten off a mighty large claim to have to prove, but it is your claim to back up. You fail to either attempt such proofs or to acknowledge you have none.
You insist that the Twelve received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but no one else did. But if I may quote John the Baptist, when he spoke of Jesus: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire!” To whom was John speaking? Who was this “you”? Well, Matthew tells us clearly that the audience included Pharisees and Sadducees. Mark says it was just about everybody in the Jerusalem area and the Judean countryside. Not just the Twelve, who were not even called until after John was imprisoned. Your limiting the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit flies in the face of clear scripture here. This is no guess and no assumption. It is John, not I, who debunks your assumption.
Ray, you wrote as follows: “SOME could speak sometimes “in tongues.” None of these gifts seem to have continued to happen past the apostolic age.” This is odd, because millions of believers continue to speak in tongues today, including me. So unless your entirely nebulous “apostolic age” continues yet, your observation is hopelessly myopic. The only reason one might think such gifts have disappeared is that he rejects wholesale the testimony of anyone outside his own acquaintance whose words might contradict his presumptions. Oh, and your reasoning is circular: “Apparently, no one speaks in tongues today.” “Oh, but I speak in tongues!” “No, you don’t. I reject your testimony.” “But why?” “Because I don’t believe anyone speaks in tongues.” Such folly.
Ray, you also offered this opinion about supernatural signs which confirmed the conversion of Cornelius. You said, “Those signs were the same as seen on Pentecost when the apostles were baptized in the Spirit. Those signs were never seen during normal baptisms.” Now, I can’t take issue with your definition of “normal baptisms” because you offer none, in spite of your trying to draw Luke in as a dubious reference. We have a complete invention from whole cloth here. This is not supportable biblically simply because the whole concept is a later invention. You create two classes of baptisms, normal and (I suppose) abnormal, and then proceed to incorporate that invention into your argument as though it were some sort of fact. One question such an invention raises with me is which sort of baptism Peter and James and John underwent: was it normal or abnormal?
One more for the road, if I may. Ray, you offer the following familiar argument: “But what is made clear is that only the apostles could transmit special gifts of the Spirit by this means. Philip had himself been anointed, and was able to perform miracles. But he could not give others such powers.”
But this is not at all clear to me, nor to millions of believers. First of all, I do not know what “special gifts of the Spirit are”, nor does the scripture. Again, a man-made concoction offered as holy writ. Nor does Luke say this, your claim notwithstanding. (Please note that there is a difference between Luke’s words and the conclusions you draw from your reading of his words. I am certain that you would be dissatisfied if I took your words and gave them similar treatment, taking my own conclusions and telling people that “Ray said so”.) You make an assumption here that no one seems to notice. You treat the gifts of the Spirit as though they were really “the gifts of the apostles”. (Which apostles, exactly, you are inconsistent in identifying. The size of the group fluctuates.) You speak of these gifts as being given by the apostles, when the only other person in scripture to make this assumption was a sorceror named Simon, whose theological credentials are at least somewhat suspect. Nowhere do you find any apostle claiming to have given people spiritual gifts or “powers”. Not once. The Holy Spirit gives these, and the human agent– or lack thereof– is of no real moment. Paul said the Spirit gives these gifts. You have attributed this power instead to a small group of long-dead men. I am reminded of the words of an angel, who asked, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” Paul tells the Corinthians to desire to prophesy… a strange instruction indeed if the only way they could do so was if Paul empowered them himself. But as Paul was not IN Corinth when he gave them this instruction– which would prevent his laying hands on them– maybe he was just pulling their collective congregational leg. A little apostolic humor, perhaps.
I think you all have parts of the topic correct. Lets remember that Peter and the eleven stood and addressed the crowd. Speaking in tongues(Languages) other than the ones they were taught prior too the event in question. In this explanation to the crowd that heard the noise and gathered to hear an explanation. Read what Peter tells the crowd! He quotes Joel. It clearly says that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for all peoples. This negates the idea that it is received by a few and that it came once or twice upon only a selected group. The empowerment that the twelve received in the upper room was promised to them only(with one exception Paul). The gift received at the baptism in the name of Jesus is the indwelling of the Spirit. This is only received through baptism in the name of Jesus. Removing our sin, and sealing us, therefore marking us as belonging to Jesus. Adopted, Sons of the living God. Praise the Lord!!
It seems unnecessary to repeat what anyone can learn by reading the inspired texts if they seek truth. But I will repeat that only the apostles showed any evidence of having received power to remember what Jesus had taught the apostles during His earthly ministry. And only the apostles were led into all truth, including things Jesus had not revealed to them during His life on earth. Why would I have to try to prove that obvious fact? Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until THEY were endued with power from on high, which was the promised baptism in the Spirit. Simple truths. Obvious to anyone who seeks truth. The apostles were uniquely called by Jesus and taught by Jesus and empowered by Jesus through His Spirit.
The gift of the Spirit given to the apostles is obviously NOT given to all Christians, or all would be apostles and led into all truth. I observe, I repeat, that the apostles were unique. And uniquely led and empowered by the Holy Spirit. They were told to wait in Jerusalem and they WOULD receive the Spirit. They obeyed. They waited. They were empowered. No one else received the baptism in the Spirit which was given to the apostles. If they HAD, they would have been empowered as were the apostles. So the three-year preparation given to the apostles would be wasted, since now just anyone could become an apostle. By a baptism of some kind which couldn’t be seen and couldn’t be felt and left no signs behind.
The languages in which the apostles spoke were understood by the hearers. The tongue-speaking later spoken of as a spiritual gift given to some in the apostolic age required an interpreter, and instructions were given that the tongue-speaking was not to be done in public in the absence of an interpreter. Many Pentecostals don’t know the rules, so they jabber freely whenever they feel like doing so. And they suppose it is God’s Spirit that causes them to do so. But it was God’s Spirit who knew and through the apostle Paul gave us (and Corinthian tongue-speakers) the rules.
We receive the gift of the Spirit with no sign He has come to live within us. Many do not realize God is now living in them after they are reborn of water and spirit. But God keeps His promises. Speaking of keeping promises, it is suggested that John the Baptist promised “you” (all his hearers?) they “you” would be baptized in the Spirit and in fire. Since he proceeded with his message by speaking of Hell’s fire, I think we can safely figure out that he was speaking of the fact that SOME would go to Hell. I marvel then that some would think that he was promising all who had ever come out to hear him that they all would be baptized in the Spirit.
No, John’s prophecy was that JESUS would baptize in the Spirit and in fire. Some in the fires of hell and some with His Spirit. Obviously not all. Either in fire or Spirit. And it’s probable that none who heard that prophecy received baptism in the Spirit. It could be that some who heard John will someday be sent to Hell. This seems likely. But the invitation to avoid Hell is open to all. We don’t know who was told by John that someone was to be baptized in Hell. But we can be sure it was to be done by Jesus. We learn later that it will follow a great judgment day which is still in the future.
And as for the baptism in the Spirit, we learn in Acts 1 that Jesus promised it would happen soon and that the apostles were wait in Jerusalem until it DID happen. They did. It did. And then it was over. No more apostles being empowered. No more baptism in the Spirit until the signs were repeated to persuade Peter that Gentiles could be baptized into Christ through repentance and baptism in water. So there’s no reason at all to suppose that baptism in the Spirit is for every Christian. Or for any Christian except the apostles who clearly received baptism in the Spirit on Pentecost.
To imagine that all Christians receive baptism in the Spirit in addition to the required baptism in water is to posit that there are two baptisms in the Christian system. But Paul assures us that we can be united because of ONE God and ONE Lord and ONE body. And ONE baptism. [JFG: deleted for language choice]. It was not Paul who put “By the one Spirit” into a verse which properly translated speaks to our need for unity because in ONE spirit we were all baptized into the one body and then were all made to “drink of” the one Spirit. Those who are reborn of water and spirit DO receive the gift of God’s indwelling Spirit.
Thanks Ray, I think we agree on 99% of what you wrote and I appreciate your ability to state it so well. I agree with your comments on the empowerment of the Apostles. I think I have differences with you concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe the prophet Joel and Isaiah. I think Peter and the eleven that stood and addressed the crowd in Acts 2 tell us that this is for all people Jew Gentile etc. Joel 2 is quoted by Peter indicating that the very thing that has and is occurring on this was foretold by the prophets of old. Jesus refers to this event in John 7: 37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. 40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” Ezekiel 47, Zach 14, Jeremiah 17:13 when Jesus is talking to the woman at Jacobs well he offers her Living water. There is too many scriptures that speak on the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as springs of living water that begins in Jerusalem and become a river that continues to become deeper and wider. If this outpouring of the Spirit is a two time event that happens only to the twelve and the gentiles in Cornelius’s house than this would mean that the spring of living water is released and then capped, release again and capped for ever. This contradicts scripture. Some were called to be Apostles some evangelist…the calling is different from person to person and God empowers each accordingly. Obviously the Apostles calling require different empowerments then any others and it was promised to them for this very purpose. When Jesus said that he came to bring fire upon the earth and oh how he wished that is was already kindled. I believe he is referring to this event that is to occur on the day of Pentecost. If the fire that he is referring too here is the fires of hell only then this would be contrary to Jesus teaching that he wants no one to parish. It would also contradict what is foretold by the prophet describing this event. Please read Zachariah 2: A Man With a Measuring Line sighted also in Ezekiel
1 Then I looked up–and there before me was a man with a measuring line in his hand! 2 I asked, “Where are you going?” He answered me, “To measure Jerusalem, to find out how wide and how long it is.” 3 Then the angel who was speaking to me left, and another angel came to meet him 4 and said to him: “Run, tell that young man, ‘Jerusalem will be a city without walls because of the great number of men and livestock in it. 5 And I myself will be a wall of fire around it,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will be its glory within.’ 6 “Come! Come! Flee from the land of the north,” declares the LORD, “for I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven,” declares the LORD. 7 “Come, O Zion! Escape, you who live in the Daughter of Babylon!” 8 For this is what the LORD Almighty says: “After he has honored me and has sent me against the nations that have plundered you–for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye– This is fire on the day of Pentecost is describe as a ring of fire protecting the many being called. I want you to consider that this baptism of fire has a deeper meaning than just judgment or hell fire. From other scripture that I have studied the word “fire” is used to describe judgment, protection, conviction, refinement, empowerment. For example the prophet Jeremiah was discouraged and and considering to end his preaching after having had no convert in forty years. Describes that he can not because he has a fire within his bones that prevents him from quitting.(conviction) Example 2 what did the fire mean to those Jews being guided by fire at night. ( protection, guidance empowerment )Ezekiel he describes that the Lord has been try to remove the dross through the refinement process unfortunately they will become no more than Dross that is removed after the refinement process is finished. This is also described to us in the New Testament, I am sure you can recall. #4 In 1 Timothy Paul warns Timothy not quench the fire of the Spirit and suggests that he fans the flames. (power, conviction, etc…)