Do We Need To Receive The Holy Spirit Sometime After We Believe?
I’m hoping you can help me understand the issue in Acts 8 verses 14-17? Was there anything in your notes to clarify the difference between the two baptisms that you didn't get time to address? I'm excited to work through this as I have been confused about baptism in general with some Christians maintaining there are two baptisms, some saying only one necessary etc.
Blessings, Jo Ince
Great question, Jo! I’m sorry I didn’t get time to address this on Sunday, but I wanted to make sure everyone got home for dinner!
To refresh everyone’s memory, here’s the passage in question:
“When the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. After they went down there, they prayed for them so that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit because he had not yet come down on any of them. (They had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
It’s true that some denominations, (e.g. Pentecostals) have taken this passage to mean that all Christians should receive the Holy Spirit in a specific way after their initial conversion. This is often referred to as ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’, or Spirit Baptism. In these traditions, it is understood that a new believer will be baptised with water symbolising regeneration, and will subsequently be baptised in the Spirit.
It gets tricky because these two separate experiences are both referred to as “baptism.” The ancient Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizó) means to immerse, or to dip, so the usage here refers to being immersed in the water (water baptism) or immersed in (or filled with) the Spirit (Spirit baptism).
In the case of water baptism, the immersing is done by a pastor, but in the case of Spirit baptism, the immersing (or filling) is done by God himself.
My view on all this depends entirely on what a person means by ‘Spirit baptism’.
If they mean a fresh filling with the Spirit to empower a believer to live a godly Christian life, then I say YES! and AMEN! More Holy Spirit, please and thank you.
However, if they mean (as some do) that Christians aren’t fully Christian without a distinct, subsequent experience of ‘receiving the Spirit’ (and according to many, receiving the gift of tongues) after their initial conversion, then no, I don’t agree.
I’ll attempt to explain why by addressing:
How we should interpret Acts;
The context of Acts 8:14-17; and
The witness of the rest of the Bible
1. How should we interpret Acts?
You might remember I began this teaching series back in April by asserting that the Book of Acts is descriptive, but not always prescriptive. By that I mean Acts describes the historical development of the early church, including unique and transitional moments (e.g., Pentecost, Samaria, Gentile inclusion). Luke’s main purpose is to describe an historical narrative, not necessarily to prescribe what Christians ought to do in general. An example would be how Acts describes the early Christians selling their possessions and property and dividing the proceeds among themselves. Christians have generally read this as a description of what happened then, but not a prescription for what all Christians ought to do from there on. This is evident in the New Testament itself, where we see different churches providing for the needs of other believers in different ways.
I believe Acts 8:14-17 is describing a special instance in redemptive history rather than prescribing a two-step reception of the Holy Spirit as normative for all Christians.
Here’s why…
2. The context of Acts 8
You’ll remember from my previous two sermons that Acts 8 is an important transitional moment in redemptive history. It shows the gospel expanding beyond Jerusalem to Samaria, fulfilling Jesus' promise in Acts 1:8.
This was an important transitional moment because Jerusalem and Samaria viewed one another as being completely distinct cultures. Indeed, the Jews in Jerusalem were ardent in their belief that the Samaritans weren’t part of God’s chosen people. This is what makes the conversion of Samaritans in Acts 8 a potentially divisive situation for the early church. It would have been very easy (and understandable) for the Christians in Jerusalem to reject the new converts in Samaria, or to at least see them as a separate group - not in fellowship with the Jerusalem church. We’re very used to having dozens of different denominations, some of whom don’t recognise the others as ‘real Christians’. This is sad, but if it had happened at the very beginning of the church, it would have been disastrous.
So then…
I think that the delay in the Spirit's arrival (8:15) was a unique and deliberate act of God to enable the Apostles (Peter and John) to be present (8:14) to confirm and authenticate the inclusion of the Samaritans when they receive the Spirit. This prevented division between Jewish and Samaritan believers and demonstrated that the church is one body, unified under the authority of the Apostles, across ethnic and geographic boundaries.
This was all hugely important for the survival and flourishing of the early church, and therefore it makes sense that God sovereignly ordered it in this way.
3. The witness of the rest of the Bible
Whenever we find it difficult to interpret a certain passage, it’s important that we look for passages in the bible that might help us make sense of it. We interpret Scripture with Scripture.
But we needn’t even travel beyond the pages of Acts itself to find that this passage can’t be describing the only method by which people receive the Holy Spirit.
For example, in Acts 2:38, Peter tells the crowd who respond to his gospel preaching, “Repent and be baptised, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Peter says nothing of a delay between water baptism and the reception of the Spirit.
Also, Acts 10:44-48 describes people receiving the Holy Spirit before they are baptised - the opposite sequence from that of Acts 8! This shows us that the passage we’re puzzling over can’t be the only way people receive the Holy Spirit, and therefore it would be wrong to assert (as some do) that Acts 8 is the pattern to expect for all Christians everyone.
Moving beyond Acts, the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 8:9 that, “You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.” Which implies that salvation and the giving of the Spirit are synonymous.
Water baptism and Spirit baptism also seem to be synonymous in 1 Corinthians 12:13, “For we were all baptised by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and we were all given one Spirit to drink.”
TLDR
I do think we should regularly ask God to fill us with his Holy Spirit. In order to live the Christian life, to make all of life all about Jesus, to live as he lived - we must be continually filled (like the sails of a ship) with the wind of the Holy Spirit!
If someone wants to use the term ‘baptism of the Spirit’ to refer to this ongoing filling, that’s cool. Ask God to immerse you in his Spirit - nothing better! But I want to be clear that believers do in fact receive the Spirit when they are saved. As Paul says in Ephesians 1:13, “In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed.”
When people use Acts 8:14-17 as a prototype for every Christian’s experience of conversion and subsequent reception of the Spirit - when they make it normative for all Christians everywhere, when they say that salvation is somehow deficient without a specific, subsequent and separate reception of the Holy Spirit… For all the reasons outlined above, I say, NOPE.
Love, Jonathan
