Is There a Biblical Basis
for the "Baptism of the Spirt"?

The Bible is replete with examples of men and women who had fallen under the overpowering presence of God, and experiencing reality of an out-of-this-world dimension. If we are going to find the basis for something that does not have a name in Scriptures but that fits into something that the Holy Spirit would do, it would have to be the New Testament that we turn. Thematically, the book of Acts of the Apostles has been called, and I think no one will dispute this, "the record of the work that Jesus continued to do through the Holy Spirit." Similarities between what is recorded there and many of the experiences witness in the history of the phenomenon also suggest that the book of Acts is a meaningful place to begin.

The most obvious event in Acts that bears comparison with what is called "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the experience of the early disciples on the day of Pentecost when "suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them (Acts 2: 2-4). This bears the closest resemblance to my own experience as I had related earlier.

Others have suggested that Acts 8 also provides another case for recognizing the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a genuinely biblical spiritual experience. Philip had been preaching to the Samaritans and many of them had come to Christ. Informed of the events in Samaria, the leaders in Jerusalem sent Peter and John there to lay hands on them "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (8:16-17). The passage is difficult because it raises a whole lot of questions to which we have not answers. Why did Peter and John have to come from Jerusalem to lay hands on them in order for the Samaritan believers to receive the Holy Spirit? Why could not Philip havedone it? If he could, why did he not do it? How could it be known that the Samaritans, though believing and baptised, had not been "given" to them? We can only speculate on possible answers to these questions. The important thing for our discussion here is that something very visible and startling must have happened when they "received" the Holy Spirit. First, there must have been something visibly transforming for Peter and John to recognize that they have been given the Holy Spirit. Second, the giving of the Holy Spirit must have been startling for Simon the sorcerer, who witnessed it, to bribe Peter and John for the ability to so the same (vv18-19). So what was this visibly transforming phenomenon that attended the Samaritan's reception of the Holy Spirit? The text does not say. Some teachers suggest that whatever it was it is the equivalent of what they term "the baptism of the Holy Spirit." Some have suggested that this visible sign was their ability to speak in tongues and, extrapolating from there, insist that "the gift of tongues" is the essential sign of the receipt of the Holy Spirit. The first half of this assertion may possibly be entertained—and, even then, only tentatively—the second is pure presumption (it is an assumption based on the validity of a previous assumption that is, at best, only tentative).

A third example of incidences reported in Acts that bear comparison with the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is that recorded in Acts 19, at the beginning of Paul's so-called "third missionary journey," generally dated to about 53 AD. Paul had arrived at Ephesus where he found some disciples and he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1). "'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.' Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?' 'John's baptism,' they replied. Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all."

Again, a whole plethora of interesting questions can be asked about this passage. What is important for our consideration are 1) what prompted Paul to ask his initial question about receiving the Holy Spirit? 2) this is the second time we come across the laying on of hands and the giving of the Holy Spirit; is such an unction by recognized leaders essential for the giving of the Holy Spirit?

We have no conclusive answer to the second question. There are three cases in the NT reporting the laying on of hands and the giving of the Holy Spirit, Acts 8 (the Samaritans), here (the Ephesians) and Paul's own reception of the Holy Spirit when Ananias laid his hands on him (9:17). While three cases establish a plausible pattern, but is insufficient for drawing any prescriptive conclusions. This means also, I believe, that there is insufficient grounds in Scriptures to insist, as charismatic preachers tend to do, that every Christian must pass through the "laying of hands and to receive the Holy Spirit," often defined in the general terms understood as "baptism of the Holy Spirit."

We have no conclusive answer to the first question too; the text simply does not say. That Paul so specifically asked, however, is important. The fact that both the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts 8 above) and Paul were so specifically concerned about the receiving of the Holy Spirit, even if such an emphasis is not found in the epistolary literature of the rest of the NT, suggests that we are amiss in some way in the modern church in simply assuming that a Christian (even if she is not yet baptized) has the Holy Spirit. We are not acting with the same depth of concern that those whom we disciple should actually know, not just as a matter of doctrine, as a matter of concrete awareness that they have indeed received the Holy Spirit. This observation can certainly be seen as giving greatly applause to those so-called charismatic preachers who preach so passionately about the need to be filled with the Spirit (or "baptised with the Holy Spirit" than to those who simply assume, on doctrinal grounds, that every Christian already has the Holy Spirit. So, what is missing here in our ministry when we hardly ever ask, or care that, those in our congregation if they have received the Holy Spirit?

Three cases, as I have said, establish a plausible pattern. With the three case examined above we are, therefore, allowed to say that there is sufficient evidence in Scriptures to claim a biblical basis for the genuine-ness of baptism of the Holy Spirit, but we cannot get to the point where it can be insisted that everyone should experience it. That having said, it remains important for us to repeat the question we raised in the last paragraph; are we as concerned as Peter, John and Paul that our members should know in a concreted experiential sort of way if they have received the Holy Spirit? How would they know?

Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2017