by Pastor Mark Chin

INTRODUCTION

How is a Christian to understand, appreciate, and experience the role of the Holy Spirit in his or her life today? True to the post-modern spirit of the world in which we live, we are given as many explanations as there are individual experiences. For the evangelical Christian, however, there is the alleged comfort of being able to find clear answers to such questions in an authoritative source that transcends human experience and human reason. For the saints, this authoritative source is the testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself, the canon of Holy Scripture, the Word of God. Yet even among evangelical theologians who purportedly believe in the infallibility, inerrancy, sufficiency, and perspicuity of God’s Word, a divisive debate over what should define the normative role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life rages on. It is a debate that touches on all aspects of Christian life, both corporate and individual. At the heart of this debate is how a Christian is to rightly understand the Spirit’s testimony concerning the baptism in/of the Holy Spirit? Henry I. Lederle pinpoints the key interpretive question which has divided the evangelical ranks when he asks, “Is Spirit-baptism identified with regeneration or conversion or with an experiential “second blessing” that occurs after conversion?” [1] He goes on to note the doctrinal implications of such a question by concluding, “The crucial issue is the question whether the Christian life is characterized by “one or two stages.” [2] Is there a second stage to the Christian life, marked by a second blessing of the Holy Spirit which empowers a higher level of sanctification and/or service? Or, is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer a unified whole that begins with regeneration and will be completed with the believer’s glorification in the presence of the returning King?

At the heart of the debate are differing interpretations of the biblical meaning of Spirit-baptism or the baptism of/in the Holy Spirit. These, in turn, are based upon differing ways of handling Scripture, especially the book of Acts and how it relates to the whole of Scripture. Nowhere is this more evident than in how the different sides of the debate view the event of Pentecost in Acts 2. Here lies what has often been the primary battleground for our understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of New Covenant saints. Yet it is my conviction that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is clear and consistent, demonstrating continuity throughout the entirety of Scripture as to the meaning, significance, and implications of the baptism in the Holy Spirit that is documented in Acts 2. Furthermore, the clear and consistent testimony of the Spirit of God testifies to a unity in purpose and effect in the Spirit’s ministry which is not found within the framework and function of the two stage paradigm of the Christian life.

I will attempt to support these convictions by first examining the two stage/second blessing of the Holy Spirit paradigm of the Christian life. I will first examine the history of this paradigm and how this paradigm has come to define the baptism of the Holy Spirit among Charismatic and Pentecostal evangelicals. I will then examine the theology and hermeneutics that is used to support this paradigm. Finally, I will briefly discuss the conclusions and implications of the two stage methodology as it relates to Spirit-baptism.

PART I: AND THEN THERE WERE TWO

Within Protestant orthodoxy, regardless of dispensational or covenantal affinities, there has been a general consensus from the patristic period onwards that within the New Covenant era, Spirit-baptism is “a one-time experience (Eph 4:5)… synonymous with regeneration or new birth.” [3] James Dunn defines baptism in the Spirit as “the chief element in conversion-initiation so that only those who had thus received the Spirit could be called Christians….” [4] Without it, there is no New Covenant Christian life whatsoever. It is the fulfillment of the New Covenant promises given by the prophets (Ezk 36:24-27; Jer 32:37-40; Joel 2:30-31), whereby God promised that He would “give his people new hearts and spirits through the indwelling of his Spirit, resulting in a new lifestyle.” [5] Though the emphases may vary slightly between the dispensational and covenantal camps, the common ground within protestant orthodoxy is that Spirit-baptism is a one-time New Covenant event with permanent results whereby the Holy Spirit inaugurates the believer’s union with Christ, the believer’s union with the body of Christ (i.e. the church), and the believer’s progressive sanctification into the image of Christ within the context of both those relationships. [6] The baptism in the Holy Spirit is the initial step in the life of the New Covenant saint that inducts him or her into the unified whole of the Spirit’s sovereign and providential work, not only in the life of the individual believer, but in the life of the body of Christ as a whole, in fulfillment of God’s promise.

In contrast to this one-step inaugural position adhered to throughout history by protestant orthodoxy, the two-step or two-stage paradigm of the Christian life defines Spirit-baptism as a distinct repeatable and pivotal second work, gift, or blessing of the Spirit subsequent to, and therefore separate from, one’s regeneration or conversion. [7] It is a gift that is given for a specific purpose in the individual believer’s life. Its presence in the believer’s life is visibly affirmed by a tangible experience and a visible demonstration of the Spirit’s power. There have been, arguably, fringe proponents of the two-step paradigm throughout the history of the Christian faith, especially among those who desired to experience God in a “deeper way” beyond their initial conversion to the faith. Within the Catholic tradition, the sacramental system, the ecclesiastical system, and the system of sainthood are all highly suggestive of a two-stage ideal for the Christian life among those who are already, allegedly, members of the body of Christ. Within the history of protestant evangelicalism, we find the early rumblings of such a paradigm with certain Puritans, “known as the “Sealers” and possibly early primitive Baptists who held to a dramatic experience to be sought which brings “assurance of one’s sonship” and results in power (a new boldness).” [8]

However it is within the Wesleyan Methodist movement that we begin to see the roots of a clearly articulated theology of a two-stage Christian life marked by a second gifting of the Holy Spirit. [9] It is important to highlight the word “roots” with regard to Wesley. Wesley, himself, was never a proponent of a clearly articulated doctrine of a post-conversion Spirit-baptism, nor were the terms “the baptism of the Spirit” or “fullness of the Spirit” used by him, nor did he develop any extensive expositions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. [10] The focus of much of Wesley’s work was on the Spirit’s sanctification of the individual believer’s life. [11] Wesley saw the work of the Spirit in sanctification as being a continuum throughout the pilgrim’s journey, but a continuum that was marked by different stages. [12] The difference in stages was a difference in degree of sanctification, not necessarily in kind. [13] However, he famously introduced the idea of a “second crisis” stage of instantaneous entire sanctification by the Holy Spirit in which “all sin is taken away and the heart is purified …. There is no mixture of any contrary affections: All is peace and harmony after.” [14]

Interestingly enough, it is in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we see the two-stage paradigm for the Christian life and Spirit-baptism blossoms. It was Wesley’s successors, the Wesleyan-Holiness movements and the Keswick Holiness movement that help clearly define a normative two-stage Christian life where Spirit-baptism was described initially as a second indwelling event of the Spirit after salvation for the perfection in love and then later for victorious Christian living in the life of the individual believer. [15] Salvation, a one time event for all Christians was to be followed, for some, by a second gifting, blessing, or baptizing by the Holy Spirit for a specific function or purpose, initially for victorious personal sanctification and later for a powerful winning of souls for Christ. As a consequence, according to this view, the body of Christ becomes divided into two classes of believers – those who have received the second gift of Spirit-baptism or Spirit-anointing and those who have not. Those who embraced the Keswick version of the second blessing included such influential evangelical leaders as Andrew Murray, D.L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, A.J. Gordon, A.B. Simpson, Alexander Dowie, and O.J. Smith, many of whom were considered to be the spokesmen and fathers of modern American evangelicalism. The attainment of the victorious life-changing second stage of the Christian life, made possible by the two-stage definition of Spirit-baptism, was to be aspired to by all but would be achievable only by some. Criteria were put forth that supposedly would open one’s life up to this second work of the Spirit. Christians were encouraged to actively pursue the second blessing through seeking, praying, repenting, obeying the Bible, and increasing their faith. “From Wesley’s view of a sanctifying event of perfecting in love or Christian perfection brought about by the Holy Spirit, a two-tier system evolved as the pattern for the Christian life.” [16]

It is on the clearly defined two-stage framework hammered out by Wesley’s American evangelical successors, resting upon a new second-work definition of Spirit-baptism, “that the whole Pentecostal movement would later be built.” [17] It was arguably on Azusa street, in California, at the turn of the 20th century, where the Pentecostal movement exploded onto the evangelical world scene. Within a few years it would rival Coca Cola as an international American export, taking root in over 50 nations. [18] Though the “gifts of the Spirit” and “speaking in tongues” would be the distinctive hallmarks of the movement, it would be the two-stage paradigm, dependent on “the classical Pentecostal view of Spirit-baptism as “subsequent, conditional, and evidenced by glossolalia” [19] which would shape the heart of the movement. Gee, a representative of Pentecostal theology, declared in 1955 that Spirit-baptism “was the central issue in Pentecostalism.” [20] He further described what he meant by Spirit-baptism: “The designation “Pentecostal” arises from its emphasis upon a baptism in the Holy Spirit such as that recorded in Acts 2… as a separate individual experience possible for all Christians… subsequent to, and distinct from, regeneration.” [21] Stanley Horton describes the Pentecostal Spirit-baptism as a “second step of faith,” “an observable and intensely personal experience,” whereby God’s Spirit comes “into a believer’s life in a very focused way.” [22] The General Council of the Assemblies of God outlined their position on the baptism of the Holy Spirit in article 7 of their Statement of Fundamental Truths.

Article 7. The Baptism in the Holy Ghost

All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8; 1 Cor. 12:1-31). This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12-17;10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:8-9). With the baptism in the Holy Ghost come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37-39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Heb. 12:28), an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love for Christ, for His Word and for the lost (Mark 15:20). [23]

By the movement’s own definition, then, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, was no longer to be understood as an initial, inaugural, regenerating, unifying, unilateral, monergistic, one-step work of God with a strong corporate emphasis in Christ, but rather as a second-step, subsequent, separate, synergistic, conditional event with a strong individual emphasis and a heavy experience-based affirmation, endorsing a two-stage Christian life and two-tier body of Christ. From Oxford to Asuza street, by way of the great American evangelical revival leaders, “a new elitist division was struck in Christianity – not connected to function, as the unfortunate dichotomy between clergy and laity which evolved in patristic times, but dependent on a specific spiritual experience.” [24] A uniquely American brand of evangelicalism was born in which “the individual becomes the prime-mover in this process.” [25]

PART II: WHY TWO ARE BETTER THAN ONE, OR SO THEY SAY

a. The Method In The Madness

How can one justify and defend a definition of Spirit-baptism that encompasses the doctrines of subsequence (Spirit-baptism subsequent to conversion), of tongues as initial evidence for it, of pre-conditions for receiving it, and of individual empowerment for service as the primary result of it? It is done by appealing to the same testimony and authority that protestant orthodoxy appeals to, the Word of God. The division between the two camps, then, lies not in the authority but rather in the handling of that authority. Charismatic theologian, Roger Stronstad, rightly notes, “This division is not simply theological. Fundamental hermeneutical or methodological differences lie at the heart of the matter….Consequently, the experiential and theological tensions over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit will only be resolved when the methodological issues have first been resolved.” [26] This in turn, begs the question, “What method is to be used to accurately understand the meaning of the Holy Spirit’s activity?”

b. Luke Is The Man

The methodology used by many Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians gives both precedence and priority to the writings of Luke, especially with regard to Spirit-baptism. Within this methodology, a specific attempt is made to distance the canonical contributions of Luke from those of Paul. I. Howard Marshall writes, “Luke was entitled to his own views, and the fact that they differ in some respects from those of Paul should not be held against him at this point. On the contrary, he is a theologian in his own right and must be treated as such.” [27] Clark Pinnock calls us to “read Luke by himself, and listen to him” in order to see that his authorial intent with regard to the doctrine of Spirit-baptism is different from Paul.” [28] Stronstad, arguing that: (1) Luke-Acts is theologically homogenous, (2) Luke is a theologian as well as a historian, and (3) Luke is an independent theologian in his own right, concludes, “… since Luke is a theologian in his own right, interpreters ought to examine his writings with a mind open to the possibility that his perspective on the Holy Spirit may, in fact, differ from Paul’s.” [29] From here, he goes on to conclude that “… in principle Luke’s narratives are an important and legitimate data base for constructing a Lukan doctrine for the Spirit. Thus, rather than providing a flimsy foundation upon which to erect a doctrine for the Holy Spirit, as is commonly alleged, the historical accounts of the activity of the Spirit in Acts provide a firm foundation for erecting a doctrine of the Spirit which has normative implications for the mission and religious experience of the contemporary church.” [30] As is evident, a concerted effort is made to set Luke not only apart but above the other inspired contributors to the canon, especially Paul, in matters pertaining to the Holy Spirit.

c. Charismatic Theology Rules

Having set Luke apart and above the rest of the canon with regard to pneumatology, priority is given to a charismatic theology of Scripture. Stronstad defines charismatic as “God’s gift of His Spirit to His servants, either individually or collectively, to anoint, empower, or inspire them for divine service. As it is recorded in Scripture, therefore, this charismatic activity is necessarily an experiential phenomenon.” [31] Stronstad’s conclusion, with regard to Luke’s testimony about the Holy Spirit, is that “Luke is found to have a charismatic rather than a soteriological theology of the Holy Spirit.” [32] In full agreement with him, is Clark Pinnock, who states, “If you read Luke by himself, and listen to him, it seems rather clear that the outpouring of the Spirit he has in mind is not brought into relation to salvation [initiation/incorporation], as it is in Paul, but in relation to service and witness. Therefore, Luke does not tie the coming of the Spirit to the salvation event…” [33] Not only, then, is the soteriological component set aside with this methodology, but also the eschatological and ecclesiological components are also discarded in favor of a rather one dimensional charismatic perspective. The events of Luke’s gospel and Acts, as well as the rest of Scripture are assigned little if any eschatological, soteriological, or ecclesiological significance or weight. Yet clearly, Scripture attests to the fact that “there is much more to the Spirit’s effect on the believer’s life than the dispensing of gifts.” [34] Dunn rightly points out that, “Where the Pentecostal thesis breaks down is in its failure to grasp the fact that we are dealing here with events whose significance, at least for those who recorded them, lies almost totally in the part they play in salvation-history.” [35]

d. Narrative is Normative

Having isolated and elevated Luke above the rest of Scripture and having placed his writing almost exclusively beneath a charismatic lens, the Pentecostal and Charismatic methodology is then able to make historical narrative the normative paradigm for believers of all ages. Horton alleges that since “Luke is accepted as both a historian and a theologian…he is providing “divine truth” for Christians of all ages.” [36] Stronstad argues that the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is the normative paradigm for believers of all ages. He states, “Finally, just as the anointing of Jesus (Luke 3:22; 4:18) is a paradigm for the subsequent Spirit baptism of the disciples (Acts 1:5; 2:4), so the gift of the Spirit to the disciples is a paradigm (a normative framework for the mission and character of God’s people living in the last days) for God’s people throughout the “last days” as a charismatic community of the Spirit – a prophethood of all believers (Acts 2:16-21).” [37] With this approach, the historical, soteriological, and eschatological context is removed from the hermeneutical method. Freed up from these checks, narrative is made to be normative for the individual believer regardless of where it is found or how it is used in the canon. Horton illustrates this approach by making no distinction between Old Covenant and New Covenant Saints when he cites the outpouring of the Spirit on Old Covenant saints – Samson in Judges 15:14 and Elijah in 1 Kings 18:38, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah – as biblical precedence for believer’s receiving a subsequent baptism of the Spirit affirmed by visible manifestations of power such as wind and fire. [38]

e. The Charismatic Spirit: The Glory of Man

Having isolated and elevated Luke above the rest of God’s Word, having narrowed the focus to a charismatic theology, and having made historical narrative normative for all New Covenant believers, how is one to understand the New Covenant relationship between the believer and the Holy Spirit? The events of Pentecost and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are to have no corporate or ecclesiastical significance or implications. Pentecost is to be understood independently of Paul’s inspired epistles, including 1 Cor 12:13, “For 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.” [40] It is to be understood independently of the New Covenant prophecies (Jeremiah 31:27-31, Ezek 37: 15-28 and Joel 2:28-32 which Peter affirmed the fulfillment of at Pentecost and directly linked with Spirit-baptism) which are all corporate addresses with corporate implications to the House of Israel as opposed to individuals. [40] Within the two-stage paradigm, Spirit-baptism is about the empowerment of the individual, not about union with the body of Christ. As Horton says, “Spirit baptism is an observable and intensely personal experience” and ““…we see a distinction between the Spirit baptizing believers into the one body and being “given the one Spirit to drink.” [41] It is of no consequence within the Charismatic hermeneutic that it is the same Spirit who inspired Paul’s epistles and the OT prophets. Nor is it of any consequence that Luke had an extremely close and extended affiliation with Paul. Nor is it of any consideration that, as John Stott points out, “The Greek expression is precisely the same in all seven occurrences (throughout the NT), and therefore a priori, as a sound principle of interpretation, it should refer to the same baptism experience in each verse.” [42]

For Paul, according to 1 Cor 12:7-13, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an event that takes place in the heart of all true Christians at the time of regeneration. [43] In the New Covenant prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Joel, the outpouring of the Spirit of God is directly connected with repentance, salvation, and the inauguration of a “New” Covenant between God and His people. Peter, himself, the chief spokesperson and interpreter of the Spirit-baptism of Pentecost, in complete harmony with both Paul and the Old Covenant prophets, inspired by the same Spirit, makes the same soteriological and eschatological connections in his testimony, calling for the crowd to repent, to be baptized in the name of Christ, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [44] However, having isolated the Spirit-baptism at Pentecost not only from the rest of Scripture, but also from any soteriological, eschatological, and ecclesiological meaning, the Charismatic hermeneutic and methodology lays the foundation for a doctrine of subsequence and a two-stage Christian life. Spirit-baptism is separated in time and meaning from the event of regeneration, union with Christ, and union with the body of Christ.

It is the testimony of Christ Himself in John 16:14 that the Spirit would ultimately glorify Him. The testimony of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Joel all make clear that the outpouring of the Spirit in the New Covenant was a unilateral monergistic act of God as an expression of His magnificent grace, His faithfulness, and His lovingkindness. Peter, at Pentecost, in keeping with the testimony of Jesus and the OT prophets, directly connects the outpouring of the Spirit to the exalted, ascended, glorified Christ. According to Peter’s witness at Pentecost, the baptism in the Holy Spirit not only testifies to Christ as the one who unilaterally pours out this “gift” to all (not some) who believe, but it also testifies to Christ’s death, His resurrection, and His exaltation to the right hand of the Father. Having removed the continuous testimony of the Spirit throughout Scripture from the meaning of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Christ and His glorification is removed from the definition. Nowhere, in the two-stage paradigm is the glorification of Christ articulated as a component of Spirit-baptism. The emphasis is completely on empowerment for service. With Christ removed from the narrative, all that is left is man. For the two-stage paradigm, it is for man to decide what he must do to obtain a Spirit-baptism of empowerment for service.

CONCLUSION

How is a Christian to understand, appreciate, and experience the role of the Holy Spirit in his or her life? A Christian does so by listening to the entire testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has spoken and has testified clearly, comprehensively, continuously, progressively, yet consistently as to its relationship with the members of the body of Christ. It is a relationship of holiness, of love, and of unity. It is a relationship that is given freely and graciously by Christ without a list of preconditions. It is a relationship that is given to all, not some, who call upon the name of Christ to be saved from their sin. It is a relationship that testifies to the glory of Christ, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His exaltation by God. Any suggestion of something other than this is the suggestion of a relationship that is not His.

[1] Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1988),1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Stephen F. Olford with David L. Olford, Anointed Expository Preaching (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998) 216.

[4] James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Reexamination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today, (London: SCM, 1970), 4.

[5] Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit: Contours of Christian Theology, (Downers Grove, IL.: Intervarsity Press, 1996), 116.

[6] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, IL.: Moody Press, 1989), 266,269.

[7] Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1988), xiv.

[8] Ibid., ix.

[9] Ibid., 5.

[10] H.Ray Dunning, “ A Wesleyan Perspective on Spirit Baptism,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishers, 2004), 184,186.

[11] Ibid.,185.

[12] Ibid., 191,192.

[13] Ibid.

[14] John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed. 14 vols. (London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1872; reprint, Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1978), 6;488-89.

[15] Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1988), 5.

[16] Ibid., 11.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Stanley M. Horton, “Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishers, 2004), 51.

[19] Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1988), 5.

[20] Ibid., 25.

[21] J.J. McNamee, “The Role of the Spirit in Pentecostalism. A Comparative Study” (Ph.D. diss., Eberhard Karls university, Tubingen, 1974), 46.

[22] Stanley M. Horton, “Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishers, 2004), 47, 48.61.

[23] Stanley M. Horton, “Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishers, 2004), 55.

[24] Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1988), 11.

[25] Ibid., 27.

[26] Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), 2.

[27] I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), 75.

[28] Clark Pinnock, review of I Believe in the Holy Spirit, by Michael Green, in HIS (June, 1976), 21.

[29] Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), 11,12.

[30] Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), 2.

[31] Ibid., 13.

[32] Ibid., 12.

[33] Clark Pinnock, review of I Believe in the Holy Spirit, by Michael Green, in HIS (June, 1976), 21.

[34] Tyndale Theological Seminary. (1998; 2002). Conservative Theological Journal Volume 2 (2:228). Tyndale Theological Seminary.

[35] James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Reexamination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today, (London: SCM, 1970), 4.

[36] Stanley M. Horton, “Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishers, 2004), 56.

[37] Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, (Peabody, MS.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), 2.

[38] Stanley M. Horton, “Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishers, 2004), 56.

[39] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 12:13). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[40] Irvin A. Busenitz, Commentary on Joel, (Ross-Shire, GB.: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 184.

[41] Stanley M. Horton, “Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN.: B&H Publishers, 2004), 48.

[42] John R. Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit, (Downer’s Grove, IL.; Inter-Varsity Press, 1964), 23.

[43] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology ( Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1994), 767.

[44] Irvin A. Busenitz, Commentary on Joel, (Ross-Shire, GB.: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 195.