If you’re new to this series, you’ll want to read Part I and Part II first.

I’d also encourage you to read my answers to questions and comments in Part II. We cover a lot of ground that’s not in the posts. And I answer objections.

That said, let me repeat three things:

1. In this series, I’m merely answering a question that I’ve received numerous times from those who have read my books. So I’m not trying to convince anyone about anything. If you are happy with the classic Pentecostal doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which argues that tongues is the initial evidence), you should probably skip this series because your view is going to be challenged. It doesn’t bother me at all if you wish to keep believing the Pentecostal thesis.
2. I’m not a cessationist. I not only believe that all the gifts and ministries mentioned in the NT are extant (in operation) today, but I also believe in the baptism of the Spirit. I just don’t believe that it’s a second work of grace and that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence. Nor do I believe that all Christians who experience and minister God’s power speak in tongues. As I’ve said in the comments, I have functioned in all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the beginning of 1 Corinthians 12. So I’m not challenging a doctrine because I lack the experience it promises.
3. If you wish to make a comment, be sure to do your homework first. If you make unsubstantiated, inaccurate, or nonsensical remarks, expect to receive some push-back. Just a warning.

What follows are the four occasions in the New Testament where the Spirit fell on new converts in a dramatic way: Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19.

People either spoke in tongues, prophesied, or exhibited some other dramatic gift.

The question is why?

The Pentecostal thesis says that it’s because speaking in tongues is the normative experience or “sign” when people are baptized in the Spirit.

I find this unconvincing because of the reasons I sketched out in my last post. The math doesn’t work. There are Scriptures that just won’t fit the thesis without bending them. Continue Reading…

If you just joined us for this series, please read Part I before you go further.

Here is some historical groundwork to set the stage for the rest of the series:

* The idea that the baptism of the Spirit is a second work of grace seems to have been initially put forth by Wesley and his followers. They tied the experience to entire sanctification (holiness).

* R.A. Torrey was a great and dear servant of the Lord. He was a congregational minister who graduated from Yale and joined D.L. Moody in Chicago. He became the superintendent of the new bible school there. In 1895, he wrote a book that popularized the idea that the baptism of the Spirit is subsequent to regeneration (new birth). He taught that it gives a person power to witness and serve, it is received by prayer, renouncing sin, and exercising faith. (The book was called The Baptism with the Holy Spirit.)

* The Welsh revival of 1904-1905 produced many miraculous signs and conversions (reportedly 100,000 conversions). But it deteriorated by counterfeit spiritual experiences.

* The Azusa street revival of 1906 in L.A., California gave birth to the Pentecostal movement. Pentecostalism brought a certain vitality back to the church with passionate praise, worship, and the anticipation for God to do supernatural things. But it was also born with certain birth defects. One of them is a tendency to exaggerate healings and miracles. Another is the pressure to keep the supernatural going, which tends to produce excesses and counterfeits (people start “faking it” to keep it going). Another is to put the Holy Spirit and His gifts on the throne and lose Jesus Christ in the temple. These defects came in at the very outset of the movement, and they have shaped the culture and DNA of Pentecostalism till this day. You can find documentation for all of this in Frank Bartleman’s book about Azusa, mentioned in yesterday’s post.

* The early Pentecostals took Torrey’s teachings and asserted that tongues was the “initial evidence” of the baptism of the Spirit. This is the classic Pentecostal position. A case can be made for this by cutting and pasting certain verses together, but there are problems with it. The entire story of the NT church does not support it. It doesn’t hold up when we interpret the book of Acts in light of the Gospels and the Epistles as we should: Continue Reading…

Let me say a few words of introduction for this series.

First, my early Christian life was in the Pentecostal church. I was taught the classic Pentecostal doctrine on the baptism of the Spirit and handed the typical proof texts from Acts to prove that speaking in tongues was the initial evidence of the baptism of the Spirit and it is a second-work of grace or subsequent to salvation (or words to that effect).

Admittedly, the Pentecostal line of argument is quite convincing and I purchased it. But that was before I learned to read the New Testament chronologically. And without a chronological understanding of the New Testament, well, you can prove almost anything by proof texting.

Many years ago I became unconvinced of the Pentecostal viewpoint, while still holding to the belief — as well as experiencing it — that the Holy Spirit hasn’t gone to sleep and all the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation today.

Two things caused me to begin doubting the Pentecostal version:

1. I witnessed firsthand many people who were strongly coached to speak in tongues. So much so that it was close to forcing them to do so. This was very different from how I envisioned it in Acts. I never saw any evidence that the apostles coached or forced people to speak in tongues. Rather, speaking in tongues always happened spontaneously in Acts without human intervention or facilitation, beyond the laying on of hands.

2. Some of the most powerful people in the Spirit that I’ve ever met or known never spoke in tongues. These people clearly had the power of God and were very effective in evangelism as well as possessing deep spiritual insight.

Second, many scholars have pointed out that the phrases “baptism in the Spirit,” “baptism with the Spirit,” and “baptism of the Spirit” are all synonyms in the New Testament. You can’t convincingly slice these up into different baptisms by using the Greek and that’s why different translations use of/with/in for the same texts. Continue Reading…

My publisher just mailed me a copy of their new chronological Bible. And, well, I’m super impressed with it. I will be reviewing it later this week.

I’m happy to see that publishers are now coming out with chronological Bibles.

Thomas Nelson created one several years ago. And Tyndale just came out with one last month. (I’ll be reviewing it soon.)

Why a chronological Bible?

Well . . . have you ever read your Bible without understanding what you were reading?

Have you ever read any of Paul’s letters and wondered, What did he mean when he penned this verse? Whom was this letter written to specifically? What were the people like to whom he wrote? Where was Paul when he wrote, and what was he feeling? What events prompted Paul to write this letter in the first place?

Have you ever read through the Book of Acts and thought to yourself, When exactly did these events take place? And at what point in this riveting epic did Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude pen their letters? How do all of the Books in the NT fit together? What special historical events were occurring during the first century, and what influence did they have on the early church?

To my mind, reading the NT chronologically and narratively has it’s value. Here are four reasons why.

Continue Reading…