This is a sincere question for those of you in cyberspace who read my blog.
I have been thinking a lot recently about Acts 19 and what it means. More specifically, why does Paul ask the disciples he finds in Ephesus, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
The only reasonable explanation that I can come up with is that Paul’s expectation was that there was some sort of experience of the Holy Spirit that Paul expected that the disciples would be able to recognize.
Imagine if we were to ask the same question today of Christians. What would the response be? With the exception of the answer, “Yes, because my Pastor told me I did,” What other indications would a new believer have that he had received the Holy Spirit when he or she believed?
Paul then baptizes the disciples, places his hands on them and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.
If Paul was to re-ask them if they had received the Holy Spirit. What would there response have been? “Yes, because we spoke in tongues and prophesied.”
Am I missing something here? Why does this look so different from our present experience? I admit that what I have expressed here does not look that different from a Pentecostal or even Christian and Missionary Alliance Theology. But what does a Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian or Anglican do with these verses?
Again, this is a sincere question, as I do really want to have a better understanding of the passage. Any feedback I get would be really appreciated.
Here is the passage below for reference.
Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.4 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.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Michael Bell
Joshua Hearne
Tim Melton
Joel Black
I think you’re absolutely right that early Christians thought possession of the Holy Spirit was outwardly recognizable, or else why list “full of the Spirit” as a qualification for ministry? (Acts 6). But I hesitate to insist that there is only one possible sort of manifestation that counts as “outward evidence.” I tackled this topic after a fashion a while back . Maybe my ruminations will help.
PS: Link didn’t take: http://pursiful.com/?p=7
D.P.
Your link was helpful and definitely provided some clarity to the subject. (Note to other readers: Read Darrell’s article, it is certainly worth the time.)
However, I don’t think it resolves my quandary. When you state that “you’re absolutely right that early Christians thought possession of the Holy Spirit was outwardly recognizable” then why don’t we have that sort of understanding today? For example, if I google “assurance of salvation” I find all kinds of different ideas, but not much that talks about the Holy Spirit.
To me, the Holy Spirits first effect on the Christian is a connection with God; that is, the incorporation into the body of Christ.
Considering that tongues and prophecying are gifts that it is suggested in other areas that not every believer has been given, I’d suggest that if there is a recognisable effect of the holy spirit, it would be discernable only to another christian – a kind of recognition of belonging within the same family.
Hence, simply speaking in tongues and prophecying isn’t a requirement for salvation, and non-pentecostal/charismatic faiths are still sound.
But that is just opinion, I don’t have much scriptural back up there. I’ll keep my eye on this thread to hear any more convincing answers than mine.
Damian,
D.P. adds healing, and bold witnessing to the list of tongues and prophesying in his link above.
E.C.
I had asked Steve a similar question on his site.
“Are we missing something today so that we have to go back to our experience of Baptism for our assurance of Salvation rather than our experience of the Holy Spirit?”
Here is his response that he gave me permission to post over here. He encourages others to respond to his thoughts as well.
It’s not our experience of baptism that is important (I was just an infant and have no experiences or actual memory of the act), but it is rather an actual event in my personal history where God has done something for me and to me.
When the group at Ephesus told Paul that they didn’t know about the Holy Spirit. Paul asked , “Into what then were you baptised?” They told him the baptism of John. Then Paul explained the difference between John’s baptism (repentance) and Jesus’ baptism (recieve the Holy Spirit).
I think what we need (today, as every other) is the assurance that we have the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. I don’t think this assurance can come from our our faith, because we are weak in faith. It can’t come from our performance because we are sinners. It has to come from outside ourselves where God has acted for us in a tangible way.
This is why when Luther had doubts if he was doing the right thing, or if he was worthy enough, he returned (acknowledged, trusted in) his baptism. He trusted in God’s promise to kill him off (Romans 6) and then to raise him again with Christ (also Romans 6).
The O.T. Jews would return to the places where God had acted for them, spoke His promises to them …Shiloh, Bethel, etc.
We return to the places where God has acted for us. Our baptism, the Lord’s supper.
In Acts Chapter 2, the scripture says that in baptism “we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
I do think that God gave us these gifts (baptism, the Lords supper) that we might have something tangible where we can look to what He’s done for us rather than to try and whip up something inside ourselves to validate that we are true believers.
This is why I believe that God commanded that we baptize in His name, and that we partake of Him in His supper.
He never told us to do anything where He wouldn’t actually be present.
E.C.,
Thanks for pointing me to D.P.’s post. I believe that he makes a good distinction between the first and the other ‘Filled with the Holy Spirits’. In such a way, Paul in the verse you speak of was one type – baptism.
But the continuing filling with the spirit is a different event – I would say process – that will result in certain gifts coming from God – the ones you’ve mentioned and, I’m sure, others.
Steve also has some good things to say – I have a strange ambivalence about the dichotomy between baptism with water and baptism in the holy spirit. I believe that the sacraments that he speaks of (or ordinances, if that’s what you wish), are certainly gifts that, like the holy spirit, return us to communion with God.
I have read Darrel’s article, and so won’t repeat or go into any of his comments, most of which I agree with, and which I think do shed some light on this passage.
With respect to the passage that you ask about, I think that a key to understanding it is to distinguish between the work of the Holy Spirit and the manifestation or “experience” if you will.
The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is essential to regeneration: the Spirit reveals Jesus who saves, convicts of sin, and baptizes the believer into the body of Christ, and gives assurance of salvation. The Spirit, according to Romans 8:16 also testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
If the Ephesians knew only the baptism of John, and never even heard of the Holy Spirit, then this work of the Spirit had not taken place, and that is what Paul was getting at. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance to be sure, but it was instituted and practised prior to the cross, and prior to the saving gospel of faith in Christ being commissioned. As we think of the limited means of communication in that day, it is plausible, and entirely likely, that John’s disciples would have replicated John’s message, and John’s baptism totally apart from the message proclaimed since Pentecost, “repent and be baptized every one of you”.
As for the manifestation of the Spirit, I would not read into this passage anything other than that the Spirit manifested himself in that way (tongues and prophesy) on that particular occasion. The verse should not be used to suggest that these are the only evidence of the Spirit’s work in a believer’s life. In fact, apostolic teaching indicates elsewhere (1 Cor. 12 to be specific) that the Spirit manifests Himself in many different ways.
Nor would I read more into water baptism. It has been suggested that we receive the Spirit in baptism, but Acts 10:47 indicates that the Spirit can be received apart from water baptism. Since my convictions on baptism are well known to Eclectic Christian, I would say here that in New Testament water and spirit baptism (or regeneration) generally occurred either simultaneously or in close proximity to one another. They formed a package together with being filled with the Holy Spirit, which usually involved revealing gifts of the Holy Spirit. In post New Testament times these are often separate and distinct events, which unfortunately makes some of them difficult to sort out and understand.
Thank you all for your replies. You have provide many key insights into the working of the Holy Spirit.
Both Pastor Dieter and Darrell have stated something along the lines of “revealing gifts of the Holy Spirit” was a “usual” experience. Something that, in the words of Darrell, was outwardly recognizable.
Both would qualify their statements along the lines of “the verse should not be used to suggest that these are the only evidence of the Spirit’s work in a believer’s life.” Dieter references 1 Cor. 12 while Darrell would add to the Corinthian list the evidence of proclaiming boldly. I did not intend to imply that the list of manifestations should be limited to one or two items.
I agree with Pastor Dieter that “this work of the Spirit had not taken place, and that is what Paul was getting at.”
But here is my followup question, stated a little more bluntly, but still asked sincerely because my mind is not made up on this matter.
If Paul expected that the Ephesians should have been able to point to some manifestation of the spirit as evidence that they had received the spirit then why do we not have the same expectation today?
Is it because, as Pastor Dieter says, “in post New Testament times these are often separate and distinct events, which unfortunately makes some of them difficult to sort out and understand”? Would we not then expect to see more of evident gifting at Baptisms? If not, why not?
It seems to me that the key to understanding this passage lies in the fact that these men were disciples of John the Baptist. Given that these men were disciples of John they had yet to hear that the Holy Spirit had been given on the Day of Pentecost. The extent of their knowledge was that the Messiah was at hand, but they did not know that Christ had died, been buried, risen, ascended and sent the Spirit. Verse 5 indicates their conversion to Christ, at which time they received the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe this passage can be rightly used to support a “second blessing.”
Hey Mitch,
Thanks for dropping by.
I don’t think that I am trying to support a “second blessing” from this passage. I guess my question, if worded slightly differently, is “Can this passage be used to support an initial encounter with the Holy Spirit that looks quite different from what we typically experience today?”
It seems like I am lacking a little in my communication in this post. Maybe this question will get at what I am trying to understand a little better.
What was your experience that gave you assurance that you received the Holy Spirit when you believed?
I ask because I have difficulty pointing to one in my own life. I can point to one years later, but not at the point when I believed.
If Paul had asked me the same question as he asked the Ephesians, my answer would have been pretty much the same as the Ephesians. “I dunno.” Yet everyone who knows me would say, “Mike is a believer in Christ, and he was Baptized. He definitely has the Holy Spirit within him.”
Now I can point to the fruit of the Spirit as evidence of the Spirit within me. But I couldn’t do that as a new believer. The reason I knew the Holy Spirit was in me was because that is what I was taught happened. But where was the evidence at the time of becoming a new believer, the sort of evidence that Paul expected of the Ephesians, but didn’t find?
You mention several “follow-up questions”. Let me attempt to answer the last one that you raise in personal terms,”what was your personal experience as a way to address the first one, “why do we not have such an experience tody”.
I can only say for myself, that when I became a believer, I *did* “experience” something. Because of my young age (10) I didn’t feel I had a “reference point” i.e. was what I experienced “normal” or what a person is “supposed to experience”. I also had no theological label – was this being filled with the Spirit, or merely “receiving” the Spirit. I now believe that it was regeneration, and being filled with the Spirit, albeit at the level of development that I was at that point in time. I do remember that it was hard to put into words, that even going to school the next day was different somehow.
I believe that we have downplayed the experiential side of all this for fear that it would somehow eclipse “faith”. We have presented the concept of faith as being a largely cerebral event…reducing it to an “accept Christ” [how relieved Christ must be!]rather than something that radically changes our life. In the tradition that I was raised in, we never spoke about “accepting Christ”. The emphasis was on CONVERSION AND REPENTANCE which implies that your life is radically different from the time you encounter Christ. Does that involve gifts of the Spirit? Definately, even if some of those gifts are given but remain latent until discovered and developed. Does it involve emotion? Sometimes (and in my case it did) but those emotions can vary from ecstasy and joy to deep peace and everything in between, including sorrow for sin. Again, in our tradition, we tended to downplay all that because of the fear of emotional-ism, which is something quite different. Having said all that, I realize that people experience Christ in different ways, and that the “walk” with him is more important than the initial experience, and that this walk of obedience and surrender is what authenticates the relationship, and not just the “sinners prayer”.
Sorry to jump in here a bit late.
I think we tend to fall back on our experience rather than to trust in act of God that comes to us (water baptism).
Often, the trouble around water baptism has to do with the water. What’s water? Why the big deal? It’s just water…what can that do?
It is not the water alone, but God’s Word with the water that makes baptism a work that God does to us, whereby He gives the gift of His Holy Spirit and also forgives our sin (Acts2:38)
St. Paul tells us that “the devil can come all dressed up as an angel of light.”
He can disguise himself as the Holy Spirit. He can give us feelings and experiences which are not real, not of God.
So, while our feelings and emotions are great (God gave then to us after all), we cannot trust in them. They can betray us.
That is why Luther said that we should return to our baptisms.
This is an act (that God does-not us) from outside ourselves that we can rely upon utterly and completely for God does not renig on His promises. The same goes for the sacrament of the altar. It is God’s work …for us. The Word of God, after all, is really the only thing that can be trusted in completely. Luther called baptism and Holy Communion “visable Word”. Of course we understand the Word of god not only as Bible(it is that too), but Jesus Christ Himself. “In the begining was the Word…” (not ‘in the begining was the Bible’)
Anyway, that is why Lutherans (some of us anyway)take the sacraments so seriously, and distrust our feelings and experiences of the spirit (there’s more than one spirit,you know – and in our sinful condition, we can’t know for sure always, which is which)
Thanks for letting me chime in!
E.C.,
You said “What was your experience that gave you assurance that you received the Holy Spirit when you believed? I ask because I have difficulty pointing to one in my own life. I can point to one years later, but not at the point when I believed.”
In myself, I experienced a pentecostal ‘baptism of the holy spirit’ as soon as I accepted Christ. I spoke in tongues, etc.
However, my life didn’t change much at all. I wasn’t water baptised for another three or four years, and even years after that, I look back at the indwelling of the spirit in my life, and would say that it is a gradual process of continuous communion, rather than something that is visible at the time of baptism.
That is to say, tongues was a gift I received. But it seems it was a gift for the sake of strengthening my faith, not a symbol that I had received the holy spirit.
In reply to Steve, I think a key thing to the Lutheran standpoint is a view of baptism and holy communion as sacraments and not as ordinances. That is, they aren’t just instituted by God, but they are physical actions by which God comes into communion with us. I’d agree that sacrament (in the sense of communion with God) is far more important as any visible sign, as I just said.
Hi,
To answer your last question, what gave me the assurance that I received the Holy Spirit after I believed was the definitive experience that things had changed in my life. It’s a long story but I experienced a marked change in my attitudes, outlook and behaviour. Although I have experienced the Spirit in different ways since my conversion – at the time of my conversion there were no outward manifestations, but rather a very clear inward change of my person. I hope that helps.
I think that things, feelings, experiences are always changing in our lives.
Even a follower of Buhdism or Hinduism or Islam will speak of the change in their lives due to the adherence to their religion.
But, as I mentioned earlier, we cannot trust those feelings or experiences. We might get a handle on our drinking problem, but then so does the non-hristian who goes to A.A. We might be able to control our desire for material things, but then the lusts of the flesh rear their ugly head.
St. Paul tells us in Romans 7 how succesful he was at controlling his sin.
So, then where are we to turn? If we can’t completely and always trust our feelings and emotions…and we can’t see any ‘real’ evidence that our performance has improved…what is it that gives us the assurance that we really belong to Him?
This is where God’s action and promises to us come in. They can be trusted completely…at all times and in all places.
Word and Sacrament. Preached word, Bible, and Baptism and Holy Communion. Also the consolation of the brethren (speaking of Him, onr to another)
This view and understanding gives me the assurance that I need, and keeps me off the “God project” (focusing on me – my performance, feelings, etc.)
Thanks!
– Steve M.